What did Germany need to win the war?

on this i fully agree. Goring was the less idiot among the idiots. his brain was badly working, his colleagues didn't have a brain at all.
Goring opposed the russian invasion more than many other commanders with a better reputation.
sorry for my out of topic.

 

Well, his colleagues didn't die in the Allied prison. I don't know if he had a brain or not, but he definitely didn't have guts.

 

oops

 

Subdue Finland? Last time I checked a peace was signed on Russias terms.

 

What I have read was Stalin had sent inexperianced troops and lost like 20,000 soldiers and then sent his best troops before the Allies could even get any troops over to help Finland and before Germany could invade Norway, Finland gave Russia what it wanted

 

The Red Army casualties were appalling compared to how many were expected.

 

Finland were good with their skiis and made some nice things. Russia afterwards changed action.

Far as I know, Sloniksp will agree or disagree, is that Russia first sended like a little troop, and then again a little troop.. But they all lost, then Russia sended big troops after another and the Finnish Soldiers couldn't stand anymore.

 

The sheer number of men overwhelmed the brave Finns. Even Stalin was surprised by their almost fanatical resistence. I believe that he even stated that "If one wants to find brave soldiers, go to Finland"..... Something along these lines.

Perhaps Kai will fill us in on the exact quote.

The Red Army was in its infancy in 39' and the Finns were fighting for their homeland.


While loosing more men, Stalin got what he wanted in the end.

 

I think would all agree though, and Hitler himself realized in 1941 the one thing Hitler couldn't do was to remain stagnant and remain on the defensive, time was working against him, everyday that went by his enemies were training more troops and improving it's war machine, and with the Lutwaffe basically defeated the bombing of Germany was already commencing, soon the US would enter the war and Russia would soon wise up and realize Germany is too big a threat to allow it to remain the dominant power in Europe and invade and with almost endless amount of manpower it would be very hard to defeat Stalin as well as defeat possible invasions from the Allies. So the question is what should Hitler have done? I think he had no choice but to invade Russia.

 

mmm.... i don't agree. stalin was obsessed with internal problems. invasion of germany was out of his agenda.

 

But could they really have mobilized more for the war in 39? My impression is that the German economy was already in trouble. Spending more in the late 30s and building up the economy and leaving Poland and the East for say the mid 40s might have worked.

If this seams a bit off I keep forgetting that I selected the latest first option on this board. But I think this still has some relevance so I'll leave it.

 

I would completly disagree!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Ww2_allied_axis.gif
Year 1941 where Hitler should of switched for defense. Yes his enemies whould've been geting stronger, but so as Germany. Having industry of all Europe (exept UK ) working for the Third Reich.
Not a secret for anybody that German military was best atacking force at that time, i personaly think they were best defending force as well. WW2 in Europe was mainly a ground campain.
Naval development played secondary role. The only country wich could defeted Germany in ground campain was USSR. It had enough of human resources and was willing to sarcrafise them.
No other Europein contry could let itself loose 200 thousand soldiers here, 300 thousand there etc...
USA & UK understood that very clear. That is why they gave all suport to Soviet they could and i'm speaking not only about LL. There were many other things people forget about.

I don't think Soviets would've atacked Germany first, not for another 5 years at least. IMO Stalin was a pussy! They had to change inside propaganda, to explain common sovit people that nazis was treacherouse enemy.
Becouse all that time befor simple soviet people was told that Germany was one of their best friends. You don't do that unless you realy counting that peace will hold.
But, we all know about that Hitlers Lebensraum idea. That's why he attacked. We all know what happend after. I personaly belive war was predetermened from 1941 year on. Some small changes could've tooke place.
It could've been 1 year longer or shorter, but Germany was doomed.

Let's take a look on scenario in wich Germany switches to defense in 1941.
Soviet busy with it's internal problems. Uk don't have power enough to overrun nazies on the ground, US to far away and another question rises - are they ready to pay high price in lives of their boys, in war on the other end of the Globe?
I would bet, Axis would've hold out longer that way.
But i don't have any illusions - nazies would've been defeted eventually anyway. Germany was in a loose loose situation.

What did Germany need to win the war? Did US and Coalition win the war in Iraq? Afganistan? Did Soviets win in Afganistan? Vietnam? Korea? Does the war realy ends when countryes military defited but population determend to fight?
It was much easyer in old times, just some 500 - 1000 years ago! If 2 country were battaling it out it was about survival. If you're resisting - you die!
Nowadays - i dare you to try exterminate "peacefull" population! With all those Human Rights, Zheneve Conventions, UNs etc., etc., etc... You will be declared unhuman SoB, half of the World will go ape sh!t on you and you'll end up hangin'.

So, what did Germany need to win the war? Reduce population in USSR, UK and USA by 50-70% each to ensure obedience permanently ( or at least for a long time ) . Simply break their will to fight. Any particular comes to mind?
But unless you want you kids have 3 legs or 2 heads you're not gonna use it. Not to mention - it was't available back then (and i guess it first would've been in 1950s if Germany tryed developing it itself ).

P.S
Pardon my English, tired.

 

So many little things going wrong whilst trying to take over the world!!!

On a grand scale failures in battle such as:

- A Fuhrer with the foresight to listen to his Generals advice when making tactical decisions. ie. Major mistakes in tactics regarding the division of Army Groups on the drive to Moscow. The change in tactics to bomb English Cities instead of RAF Airfields. These may be commonly accepted errors made by Hitler against better advice, yet they respectively cost 1 million men and most of the Luftwaffes offensive airpower in France.

Production:

Hitler once again takes the majority of the blame for his misuse of labour on his grand building plans for the new Germania. When the Reich needed valuable, trusted labour in the munitions and aramaments factories. This never really got sorted out until Speer was forced into the role of Minister of Armaments. Even then he faced major issues trying to co-ordinate to many cooks to make the broth, even with the autonomy he had as a favorite of Hiltlers.

Leadership:

I feel this is an important aspect that easily lead to the fall of the Third Reich. The top administration of the NAZI Party was less than on freindly terms. In the later years Bormann's tactics of creating distrust in Hitlers mind about all his top people added to the actual real hatred many NAZI party heads had for each other. Eg. After his Total War speech, Goebbles had Georings favorite reastaurant in Berling closed down as act of spite. These petty difference created unreconcilable riffs in the party that stiffled any ability to further a productive war effort.

Machinery:

As already noted by an earlier poster, more STG 44's in the hands of grenadiers. The fire team approach used by Heer and SS which made the MG-42 the pinnacle of the infantry attack was sound. Nevertheless once American troops were fully engaged in the battles for Western Europe the KAR 98 could not hold up to the rate of fire provided a soldier carrying a Garand or BAR.

The Heavy Bomber, It seems the facsination with the concept of the Schwere Panzer should have been indoctrinated into the Luftwaffe. Heavy Bombers could have saved millions of lives in Russia allowing sorties to be flown from Luftflottes in Eastern Germany, Poland or Czech. Aswell a Heavy Bombers magnitude of impact on the Battle of Britain would have to devestating for the RAF to recover from on those early days of Britains darkest hour.

The Type XXI Unterseeboot. If this weapon existed in atleast 1942 in enough abundance to be effective., forget about it War is over!! nothing gets from the Americas to England for the build up to D-Day.

Forget all the resources spent on the Tiger and Koenigs Tiger. A mass produced Panther redesigned for the Eastern front with a 122mm canon to take on the IS2 would have helped.

The list can go on and on and of course no nation can be perfect in the heat of Global War. I feel that the fracture of Leadership was the biggest issue in the failure of the Third Reich.

 

Wow you raise so many points at the same time. Almost all of these coud be a "what if" topic on their own.
A few things: Considering the Luftwaffe had a hard time to find enough crews, how would they have manned a consequent bomber fleet?
Also I'd be interested to read more about a potential XXI Unterseeboot offensive. would this mean a blocade of the the U.S. east coast?

 

I have too agree.

I will say right out front I do not believe that NAZI Germany could have won the war that they fought. I have been a member of these great forums for just over a year, and have learned allot in this time. That being said:

I do believe that a different Germany, under competent leadership, could have fought and won a different war! Consider a limited war, against France and England. Not against USSR and USA as well.

I will be making several WI threads some time soon (as time permits-just about too start collage), and all will have a common POD. The POD I have in mind is 1919, right after the armistice. The main point will be that German war preparations begin immediately, secretly, and steadily.

I will be making a big effort to improve the quality of my posts, and have asked a number of the others on this board for their help in this. If nothing else, I hope too entertain.

 

I believe if Operation Barbarosa had never happened, and if Hitler had kept the treaty with the Soviets, and if he had stayed out of Africa, he would have been more likely to defeat the English, who were #1 on his list. If he would have concentrated and been able to put Operation Sea Lion into play, he probably would have conquered Britain-unless the U.S. or Russia interfered. After the defeat of the Britons, he could have either pursued Russia, or move on to the U.S. Pearl Harbor was a mistake on the part of the Axis, FDR was itching for a reason to enter the war, and it was handed to him on a silver platter by the Japanese.

 

Yes but what about the Scot's, Welsh and the N. Irish. I heard he didn't like them too much.

 

Hitler never intended to conquer all of Russia. He knew that this was simply not possible. From many sources which I have read, all stated that Hitler did not plan on advancing past the Volga.

There is much evidence to support Russia's resistance and commitment to fight on even if Moscow was captured. With Russia's idustrial might out of the Luftwaffes reach and almost an endless supply of man power, the result would have eventually been the same.


GERMANY SHOULD HAVE NEVER GONE TO WAR WITH RUSSIA.

 

Shift to wartime production earlier and manpower has already been covered but the production issue goes beyond just "make more". German designs tended to be not only complicated and costly but too varied as well.

 

good remark, but that's not enough. i notice that the issue of "german war economy" is very recurrent here... so here's my points (as usual):

- imho posts that sounds like "if nazi had produced in '38 what they produced in '44 they would have won the war" are superficial, if not absurd. you can't just take the military aspect, economics and politcs are important too.

- the rule of the nazi party in germany was based on the general consensus. in early 30's the nazi party was able to pacify all social conflicts of the 20's/30's (sommething similar happened in italy with fascism)

- this social peace in the country was achieved not only using the jews scapegoat, but also thanks to a sort of social contract between industrialists and working class (no more risk of communism traded with no more savage capitalism and a stable job for everybody)

- in this contest, the idea that in '38/'40 the german factories could have worked 12/14 hours per day was simply impossibile.

- until 40' foreign slave labour was not possibile in germay, there were not enough POWs. Also, using non german labour was in contrast with the racist views of the nazi (things changed completely later, also on the military side).

- asking your people FULL commitment to war is possibile when you fight to defend your country. By contrast, asking for heavy sacrifices in the name of a war of aggression is much more difficult (despite propaganda)

- In fact, when goebbles in '43 declared "total war", germany had just begun a defensive war, the threat of the advancing soviets was a key factor.

- conclusion: germany was not able to speed up industrial production before they actually did it. Well, probably they could have started a bit earlier, say in '42 instead of '43, but anyway too late.