How Germany could've won?

I am sorry but I doubt that.

In case of capturing Moscow, the costs of action would have been much higher than benefits arising from demoralizing Russian soldiers. Under the pressure of their own leaders and barbarism of German invaders, Russian soldiers had no other choice except to fight. Besides, firm determination of Russian people in general to defend the Motherland should never be neglected.

Furthermore, almost a year later, during the summer offensives in1942, Russian Army has sustained shuttering losses and yet they have retained their firm fighting spirit.

Endurance of Russian soldiers is indeed something to deeply respect and to take into serious consideration here. In fact, high morale of Russian soldier was one of the most decisive factors that have crushed Axis on the Eastern front.

I wish you all a pleasand week-end.

Regards

 

I have erased my double post.

 

Where to begin

By The late summer of 1940 Germany had beaten the armies of Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belguim, France and England for a trifeling cost. I would not call this 'roseate', but a heck of alot better than any other point in the Reichs military history. Germany faced ony one organised enemy, England. Whose army was mostly disarmed of heavy weapons, and those who were fully armed had weapons and tactics that proved inefective against the whermacht. Russia was percieved as an ally, and America was profoundly unwilling to join the fray, what ever FDR may wished. Indeed until the BoB there was much skeptisism in the US that Britain could hold out let alone prevail.

Germany lost nearly 2,000 aircraft and almost 4,000 trained aircrew in the BoB. At the start of BoB the Luftwaffe deployed over 600 more aircraft to attack Britain than the RAF, with another 1,200-1,500 aircraft available through out the Reich. Britain may have been producing more aircraft per month in this period, but they were working from a deficit to begin with. It matters more what you have now, rather than what you have latter.

Further if you compare German production to British Commonweath production alone the numbers are far closer. By wars end they did produce more aircraft and trucks, but Germany produced more tanks and machineguns. In other catagories of land weapons they are about equal. More to the point England was a empire with global commitments, all of Germany's forces were deployed in Europe alone. Britain alone would never create a preponderence of military equipment sufficent to depose Hitler.

The British army was a fraction of the size of that of Germany, and would always remain so.

War with the US was not inevetable. After the attack FDR went to Congress and asked for a DOW, against Japan only. If he thought he could ask for one against Germany he would have done so but did not, because he could not. If there were no occupation of western europe for a year and a half, no terror bombing of English cities, no urestricted U-boat war, no invasion of Russia, then American public opinion would favor a US entry in a european war even less. No matter how FDR felt, he could only go as far as the public and congress would allow him. The war would be viewed in the US as another war in europe between colonial powers rather than a titanic struggle of good vs, evi.

The decisive nature lies in keeping Britain from the continant, and so long as her troops are going to and fro in NA, they cannot directly threaten the Reich.

The Russian-German peace would last until Hitler broke it, and not before. So long as the decadent western nations were killing each other off in large numbers Uncle Joe would sit back and smile. it is after all at the heart of communist dogma that such nations must destroy each other for the world revolution to take place.

I would ask you if you provide a single example where the USSR ever attacked pre-emptively any powerfull nation prepared to fight.

So long as the bulk of German armies were uncommited to battle, Stalin would keep put.l

 

4 replies
first,the last
1)about PH and the war between the US and Germany :there only are 2 possibilities
a)PH would mean (sooner or later) a war between US and Germany
b)PH would not result in a war between US/Germany,would not influence such war
IMHO,it is a)(Churchill was very happy when he heard of PH,his comments were:Germany is finished,thus,he was convinced that the US would join the war against Germany)
The alternative(b) is a legal chimera (I know you are no lawyer,your posts are to good):it is the same as saying,that,because Canada was an independant state (with the same head of state as Britain),a British DOW to Germany/Japan would not result automatically in a Canadian DOW.
If after PH,there was no war between US and Germany,we would have the following situation:US would give Britain a lot of 5LL) aid ,to be used against Japan.Britain would,of course,use it also in the war against Germany.Would the US forbid Britain to do this ?
2)About the SU :the point is that a neutral SU(which always could side with Britain) would and was preventing Germany to concentrate against Britain ;as you said,Stalin had nothing to gain if there was peace between Britain and Germany,thus Stalin's policy was to prolonge the war,while,the longer the war,the worse for Germany
3)About the US attitude between september 1930 and december 1941:IMHO,it is an illusion to think that,without the BoB,or if there was a German peace offensive,the following would not happen
-Congress approving the Selective Service Act
-The Destroyer/Naval bases deal
-Lend Lease
-The USN hunting German UBoats
-The freezing of German assets
-Roosevelt declaring in New Foundland that national socialism had to disappear
-The Cash and Carry Act
The fact is that on 1 september 1939,US was giving up its neutrality and was aiding Britain and France,when France was out,US simply replaced France(the French Cash and Carry orders and products were given to Britain)
About CaC:technically (=legal nonsense),it was no breach of neutrality,because,German also could order CaC things,but,if Germany had done this(ordering CaC things,which would be transported by Russian ships to Wladiwostok and,from there to Germany),I am sure that Roosevelt would have used a legal trick to prevent this .
When WWII started(september 1939),isolationism was dead,and,when the GOP choosed Willkie as candidate (august 1940),war between US and Germany was ineluctable .
I am curious about the opinion of Obama (damn,Opama) Pointer.
4)About British chances in june 1940,her,IMHO,you are confusing two things:
a) Britain's capacity to defeat Germany without the intervention of US/SU:this was of course nihil,but,that was not important,because
b)Britain's capacity to hold out was much stronger than Germany's capacity to defeat Britain :Britain could endure a long war,Germany not,and,the longer the war,the less the possibility that the US and the SU would remain neutral :it is an illusion to think that,if the war lasted in 1945,the US and the SU still would be neutral.


Germany had no possibility to defeat Britain in the short term
a)Britain won the BoB
b)the Blitz failed
c)Germany could not win the Battle of the Atlanticn 1 january 1941,Britain had more GRT than on 1 may 1940,because it received the merchant fleets of Norway and Holland
d)and here we are returning to the ME:a conquest of the ME would take years(thus,no short term)and it would not force Britain to give up.Thus,we are again returning to the worst scenario for Germany:a long war of attrition .
Unless,.......unless,Barbarossa succeeded,and,then,Germany could hold out a long war .

 

I can agree with the above, but you are confusing what I am saying.

Neither I or USMCPrice advocate the axis capture of the middle east, just Egypt, where the Axis troops would hold Defensively, While attempting to format Insurrection among the arab peoples who had no love for the British empire. Allow Britain to squander its limited land forces in actions designed to keep the restless native under control. While FDR helped Britain militarily, he also actively undermined politicly the British colonial system. Granted he hoped they would all become Commonweath nations, butif they choose independence, that was fine by him.

The BoB, Blitz and Battle of the Atlantic were all Failures for Germany which cost her ireplaceable assets, which is why I (and I believe USMCPrice) advocate not fighting the first two, and dramaticly scaling back the third. Further the occupations of France-Belguim-Holland were both costly and counter-productive, which is why I advocate a peace with them that gives Germany Some territory only. France accepted far harsher terms historicly

Britain had the resources (up to a point)to fight a long war, but as a democracy does she have the will, especially if there is no end in sight? You are correct that Germany could not fight a long war, as she historicly did, but could fight a low intensity confict almost indefinitely. Even with the improvements in supply and transportation I proposed instead of beach defences and u-boat pens, Germany could deploy only a small portion of her army to North Africa. Germany bled herself white in Russia, but would not do so in this scenario. Further these actions would have political as well as military consequences.

The US was rearming, yes, drafting soldiers, yes, because she was faced with threats from Japan as well as Germany. Selling arms to Britain, yes, because it was good buisness, as it was in WWI. That it served a political agenda was added benefit.

You say war with Germany after Pearl Harbor was inevetable, I dissagree, but lets examine that. If the US persecutes its war on Japan, then joins Britain it would only be after heavy casualties in the Pacific. These casualties would likely include a costly invasion of the home islands, for a focused US would outstrip the production schedule of the Atomic bomb. No American parent or congressman would relish the cost of another invasion following so soon. Further FDR by 1944 was dying and losing his force of will. Britain's strongest supporter was in a terminal slide. Could he rally the US for another bloody war?

Lets say war breaks out between PH and the defeat of Japan, better for Britain but no garruntee of victory. Allied bombers cannot fly over nuetral western europe or land on French beaches without risking war with France. They must either land on the North German Coast or slog up Italy or the Balkans. Hard at the best of times, but the Axis having the chance to build infrastructure and a army that is not bled white in Russia the task becomes vastly more difficult.

I stiil advocate that the USSR would rather see the west fight this kind of destructive war than attack pre-emptively themselves.

 

Yes.
From the 10th of May 1940 when Churchill came to power there was no surrender or compromise option.
It was a question for the UK of fight, or be destroyed. No other approach gained any sort of realistic support beyond a tiny minority at any time after, or had any political base to build on.
Call it bloody-mindedness, belligerence, stubbornness, whatever. You only have to glance at Great Britain's approach to War & Empire for the previous couple of hundred years to see that she had no interest in giving way to European dictators. Churchill reinforced a pretty deeply ingrained attitude. The retreat of 1940 alone was enough to tip the British psyche over into the traditional 'F**k you' stance when seriously threatened, a stance that it's hard to underestimate.
The appeasement/compromise camp were firmly back in their box for any foreseeable conflict, whether short or protracted, from the point that Lord Halifax moved into obscurity.

~A

 

I did ask my father - a Veteran but a skeptical Bastard at the best of times.


I thought being a realist that he might admit that he feared Germany might win.


To my surprise - he said that at no point even after Dunkirk did it enter his head that Germany would not be defeated.

 

About the influence of a German peace offensive on the US,I doubt it would have any effect
1)There was in the summer of 1940 little or no direct aid by the US:what Britain got from the US,she paid for it (Cash and Carry)
2)About Cash and Carry(197 million of £ requirements in 1939):it was good for Britain,for the US(the British boosted the small US aircraft industry,a lot of people were no longer on the dole)and for FDR (those who got a job would vote in november for FDR).If CaC was cancelled because of the German peaceoffer,it would be bad for Britain,bad for the US (a lot of bankrupcies and unemployed and for FDReople would blame the man in the White House,they always blame the man in the White House).In 1941,CaC would stop,because Britain was out of $,and,if there was no LL,Britain would be very weaken(maybe forced to give up),US would be weaken,and,FDR would be blamed
3)That's why (IMHO),the importance of LL for Britain (till PH) has been exagerated and the importance of CaC has been totally neglected
4)LL was resulting directly from CaC and the start of CaC(in september 1939) meaned that the US was taking side with Britain;there was no way back,a German peace offensive would change nothing .

 

a focused US would outstrip the production schedule of the Atomic bomb

Also, if the US were not involved in the European war, the British might feel compelled to maintain their own bomb program rather than merging it with ours. There might be some exchange of information, but the net result would be that the American program would take longer than it did historically - though I have no idea how to quantify the time value of the British contribution - anyone?

 

I ccept that the British are a stubborn lot yes, but the American revolution also demonstrates that there is a limit to the empire's patiense, and a cetain practicality to thier approach to what they value most.

 

Besides by 1941 they were bankrupt. If you remove the threat of a German attack on the Home Islands, no terror bombing of civilians, no U-boat attacks against US shipping, American sentiment never reaches the point there is the political will to get involved in Europe. The sentiment still wasn't there after Pearl Harbor. There was actually a draft of Roosevelts speach declaring war on Germany and Japan. It wasn't used because Roosevelt and his advisors were sure it wouldn't pass muster in the Congress. Hitler when he declared war did Britain a huge favor.

 

In 1941,Britain was out/short of dollars,that does not mean that Britain was bankrupt;even in 1941,the majority of the war expenses were paid by Britain(LL only was a small part in 1941:some 1000 million $).
If Britain was bankrupt in 1941,she would have given up .

 

I always find the Admiralty Citadel a good indicator of the UK's contemporary-to-WW2 attitude to surrender.
View attachment 15109
Situated bang on Horseguards parade, (horseguards - Google Maps) in the very centre of Whitehall & London, overlooking Green Park and looking down the Mall towards Buckingham Palace, it is a most peculiar and incongruous building.
What it is, is an enormous concrete fortress built in 1940-41 with no regard for the 'heritage' aspect of it's location (Churchill himself called it "a vast monstrosity which weighs upon the Horse Guards Parade" postwar). It could be described as one of the ugliest buildings in London, though it pleases me and my WW2 nerdery immensely.
It's not an air-raid shelter or simple blockhouse. It was intended to be the place for a last stand in the heart of government, where the seat of Imperial power would give it's final defiance to the Nazis if the worst came. It reeks of 'victory or death', Royal Family & government ending it together under arms, and underlines the distaste for any form of capitulation.

As another example, there's the much overused in our age 'Keep Calm & Carry On' Posters:
View attachment 15110
These were never issued. They were intended to be sent out if Germany landed anywhere on the British Mainland, as a message from the King to reassure the populace that all will be well if they gritted their teeth and get on with things. Again, a quarter of a million such posters being printed gives me an indication of a serious intent that sat much higher than any thoughts of surrender. This is a message that no matter what the doom, the fight will continue, there is a 'bitter end' feel to the imagery for me.

Churchill's most famous speech (arguably), was not an empty boast. I firmly believe he meant it, and the population was with him in all the sentiments expressed, and would remain so to the end, whatever that end looked like.:
Sir Winston Churchill Speech - We shall fight them on the be - YouTube

I'm honestly no petty nationalist, and try my best to be balanced on the activities of my country, but there's too many indications regarding British truculence in WW2 for me to take theorising about surrender too seriously.

Then there's the very difficult nature of an actual assault on the Mainland, which given the above would be essential to finally subdue the UK & Empire - but nobody wants another interminable bleedin' 'Sealion' thread, do they...

~A

 

I do not feel for a moment that Britain would surrender outright, even if Hitler could successfully land an army on the British Isles, in such a event the govt. would likely withdraw to Canada. Ironicly then I would not doubt US involvement (can't have those pesky nazi's following Winston over here now can we?). I merely submit that if the Axis could effect a stalemate in North Africa, prevent or delay war with the US, and forego the Russian adventure. that there is a window where Britain might consider a negotiated settlement, especially if Germany was willing to withdraw from say Denmark, Norway and Greece.

Britain could claim victory, reduce the Axis threat to her empire, reinforce her possessions in the far-east threatened by Japanese expansion, and work on a new collalition with France and other european nations leery of Berlin. Britain slid in and out of war with Napoleonic France until she could build a winning combanation before, why not now?

 

why not now ? the big difference is that WWII was an ideological war:democracy against fascism,war who would end with the unconditional surrender of one of both .
that Britain could work on a new coalition with France and other European nations :Germany would never allow this,and would continue to occupy (a part of) France and would occupy (a part of ) Britain,would demand the disarmament of Britain,in case of peace .

 

England to surrender just for sake of finances? That is simply unthinkable!

Everyone who knows British character, knows that 99.99+% of her population felt exactly what Churchil said in his famous speech, cited above by our friend »Von Poop«. Furthermore, the conflict among the UK and the 3rd Reich was much more than an ideological struggle - that was a conflict of Good against Evil. In 1939-41 England was alone and the only nation in the whole World who has firmly and directly opposed Nazis. British firm determination to win a war against Evil (Nazis) was perhaps the most decisive factor that led to the fall of the 3rd Reich.

Now, let's get back to the subject of »bankrupcy«:

US Gross public debt for 2010 was $14,512 billions and yet US position as a global military super power is indisputable!

Perhaps, Britain had some financial problems at the beginning of the WW2 but never had lack of fighting spirit and determination to prevail against Evil.

 

Would someone please point out where I suggested that Britain would, should or could surrender. Hitler stated he wished nothing from Britain other than peace, no land, no reparations, no dis-armament.

 

A negotiated peace is what we're talking about here, an armistice if you will. Just like the plan in the movie "The Eagle Has Landed" save for the kidnapping of Churchill stuff.

Even if Great Britain would have pulled out of the war, Germany would still get bogged down in the depths of the Soviet Union and be devoured, lend-lease or not. There wouldn't been even a chance to withdraw a la` Napoleon in 1812. The Rooskies would have hounded them all the way to the Rhine. Either that or both of them would have beat each other senseless in the 20th Century's version of the 30 Year's War.

 

Actually - we were; not only had we spent ALL the gold sent to the US at the start of the war - the U.S. government demanded the rest and kindly sent a cruiser to collect it. AND we had borrowed the gold the Belgian government-in-exile had evacuated to the UK.

The one thing that helped us was that what we owed we mostly owed to American banks by then - and the repayments on the various war loans raised in the U.S. to pay for materiel ordered/purchased in the U.S. under the older Cash And Carry system that predated LL came in periodically. The very last of our gold was sent in payment of those....and by the time the next tranche was due - LL was in place.

Nope, that puts it in April/May 1941 at the very earliest - and by then there was no real window, not after the BoB...and especially Coventry; apart from anything else we were already warning Moscow about BARBAROSSA, and knew (if it happened and wasn't a bluff) that that would be Hitler making his really big mistake, that we just had to keep the Soviets in the game long enough for their vast potential to kick in...hence the amount of aid WE sent for the next few years.

 

I think Surrender and Negotiated Peace get the same response, mate.
The UK was interested in neither, all commentary on the first can be applied to the latter.

~A