How Germany could've won?

Because there is a flaw in that basic premise: that Stalin and Hitler would not go to war. Both leaders were eyeing each others territory, and neither were foolish. The Soviet Union was definitely seen to be a waking giant, yet still stricken with problems: generally poor education levels, lack of infrastructure. Yet everyone saw the huge advances they were making. Even Hitler realised that scrapping with the Soviets in 1946 would be a far more difficult prospect than in 1941. Both dictators were like cats walking around hot porridge. Hitler understood that the cheap sales of food and raw materials that he received through the Molentov-Ribbentrop pact was a sign of Soviet weakness and unwillingness to yet go to war. At the same time, he understood, that the longer he postponed the conflict, the further the balance would sway to the Soviets. He could not afford to give the soviets even two more years of production and development.

His biggest chance for survival was lost when he refused to negotiate peace with the soviets in August-September 1941, from a position of strength. But even then, the best he could hope for was a respite of a few years. IMO, a demand akin the treaty of Brest-Litovsk of 1917-1918, acquiring territory up to and including the Don. Whether the STAVKA would have been willing to accept is something different altogether. Hitler's failure to even entertain discussions with the "untermensch" was born from his philosophy. He didn't want a negotiated peace with the soviets, because even if he got, he thought it wouldn't last. He didn't want it to last. He wanted to destroy them.

Critically, IF Hitler had managed to negotiate a peace with those territorial gains, at this time, then the Soviets would not have received the lend-lease equipment and vital war materials.

By August-September, it was blatantly clear to all but the most obtuse Nazi, that the basic supposition on which Operation Barbarossa hinged, was flawed. They had not achieved Strategic freedom of movement. The Soviets had mobilised much faster than they had anticipated. The Wehrmacht had basically achieved its goal of destroying the defensive Soviet forces of May 1941; the Soviets managed to replace almost 1.5 million men in 6 weeks, and arm them. Yet the Russians were still reeling. Now was the time to negotiate. But Hitler wanted, no, needed the complete destruction of his philosophical counterpoint. And it could not wait.

 

Far from sure Germany would not go to war without the Nazi party, "Cancelling Versalles" could easily be exploited by a saner political movement. Defining Versailles "a 20 year armistice" was not far from truth, eventually Germany would rearm and the millions of Germans left beyond it's borders by Versailles were a time bomb.

 

Well, I'll give you that its name may not have been "National Socialist German Workers Party", but I think the extreme right wing fascists (for want of a better word) were a political force in the 20's and 30's; there were several different parties early on, with varying degrees of radical ideas, and they jostled amongst themselves. Hitler and his cronies managed to overcome and incorporate these others. Other outcomes are possible.

A saner party would not have instigated or inflamed international opinion against Germany to the degree Hitler did. A less strident, saner party, would probably adopt a more moderate approach, a less pressing schedule, even to the question of ethnical Germans abroad, pace of rearmament, willingness to provoke and test allied will in the Rhineland, Austria, and Central Europe. To say nothing of invading Poland, and agreeing to share the spoils with Stalin.

So changing these premises (events in the 1920's to early 1930's) put us along way away from wartime events in early 1940's, and as such, make it very difficult to pierce the mist of time conclusively for any clarity whatsoever. Would the Soviets have rearmed to the degree they did, had Germany remained less militaristic? Would the co-operation on technology and doctrine between their respective militaries continue, or not? Entire policies across the whole of Europe would be thrown in disarray.

Given the current mood in Europe at the time, it was actually quite difficult to provoke war. Hitler managed to do it, but I seriously doubt a saner party would be able to. "Peace in Our Time!"

 

I agree a "saner" (by which I essentialy mean non racist) German right could be a very different kettle of fish, and it would be a wide open "what if" so not what the opening statement seemed to look for. But in 1939 the odds where stacked against Germany, no way that political leadership could have won a global war, they much too detached from reality and would inevitably "byte more than they could chew", though the military proved they coud win a lot of campaigns.

A "saner" party would still crack down on the left, so no long term friendship with the USSR but plenty of scope for a "marriage if covenience", both Germany and the USSR (if you look at 1914 Russian Empire borders as USSR), had lost a lot of territory from Versailles, so there was room for common action. Real life collaboration even with the Nazis was pretty extensive I doubt it would have been less, actually the scariest scenario is no Lebenshraum , Germany and the USSR going about re-eatablishing the 1914 borders in the East (Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Moldavia, etc.), without the certainity they would eventually clash, and France and Britain deciding they must do something and declaring war on Germany as happened and then doing something really stupid like bombing Baku or sending troops to Finland. That one may easily well end up with the Red Army in India and the Germams at Suez.

IMO they would have adopted a slower pace but still tried to go back to the 1914 borders, though the final trigger (Alsace Lorraine) would probably thake a long time to come, historically it was not even in Hitler's agenda until the French DOW and subsequent collapse handed it to him on a platter.

With no persecution of the jews the axis may well be in the lead as far as nuclear research went, Einstein was a pacifist, and likely to make a fuss if they tried to involve him in miltary developments, but Femi was not and the "via Panisperna boys" where way ahead of the field early on.

The USSR would still build thousands of tanks, but I believe the Soviet massive rearmement scheme was more because the communist party had it's power base in the workers, rather than the peasants, and so needed to get money flowing to the factories. Military hardware is a good choice for 1930 heavy industry when you lack a market feedback, the "Ford approach to industrialization" , raise the salaries so that the workers can buy the goods they produce, was not the communist way.

 

I think I disagree slightly; it was by playing the racist card that Hitler garnered the support he did (or indeed, as any far right organisation does). It really wasn't controversial in the 1920's and 30's. There was a large amount of literature internationally from 1850 right up until WWII, both "scientific" and philosophical texts espousing Aryan / Caucasian superiority, and in Germany a deep need to blame someone else for the German defeat of 1918. A non-racist conservative right was a failure:

Federal Election 1930:
Social Democrats (SDP) 24.53% of the vote, 143 seats
Nazis: (NSDAP) 18.25% of the vote, 107 seats
Communist Party (KPD) 13.13%, 77 seats
Centre Party (Zentrum): 11.81%, 68 seats (Catholic)
German National People's Party (DNVP) 7.03% 41 seats (Right wing, Anti-Semitic, already eclipsed by NSDAP)
German People's Party (DVP) 4.51% 30 seats (liberal right)
Reich Party of the Middle Class (WP) 3.90% 23 seats (anti-communist, soon to be usurped by NSDAP)
German State Party (DDP or DStP) 3.78% 20 seats (pro-republic, liberal left)
Christian National Peasants and Farmers (CNBL) 3.17% 19 seats (agrarian)
Bavarian People's Party (BVP) 3.03% 19 seats (conservative, pro-monarchy, Centre Party splinter)
Christian Social People's Service (CSVD) 2.48% 14 seats (DNVP splinter, pro-protestant)
+ 3 more minor parties entered the Reichstag (10 seats total)

Already by 1930, DNVP's increasing radicalisation has not saved it. There just isn't another conservative right party of any consequence. The Centre was "burdened" with the ghost of Erzberger and blamed by the right for the "stab-in-the-back". That's what reasonable, political moderation gets you in the 1920's in Germany.

It wasn't for lack of political parties that the Weimar republic failed.

So could have DNVP have adopted a less racist path, and simultaneously countered NSDAP? I think not! Politicans follow the flock: it was precisely because of the growing threat from NSDAP which tapped into the racism present in society, and the DNVP losses in the 1928 election (after a period of moderation and co-operation), that they re-radicalised. With racist Hugenberg at their lead, he too, was outmaneuvered by the most infamous Austrian.

 

My point was that a more politically moderate Germany would have a much better chance, that the likelihood of it was small, is not really that importance to the theory, more significant is would a more moderate leadership inspire the high risk operations that proved so successful early on and provide the motivation that sustained the morale of the troops?
However much we don't like it Nazi ideology made a big contribution to the early victories, a less aggressive and self confident leadership would probably have lost in Norway and France and the Nazi "supehuman" had a lot to do with that.

 

TOS, this brings it to a good and really true point! The Nazis Germany wouldnt have done all this things without their aggressive and dominant way of politics and leadership. A very good made point!

 

No one is more incompetent than the North Korean's in economic matters, yet they have hung on to power for 60 odd years despite claims their economy will collapse any day now. As far as I can recall "any day now" started in the Reagan administration.

 

I'm not so sure. Tooze makes the point that both Britain and the US were pretty much open to "cancellilng" at least major parts of Versailles. There are also indications that the French may have been willing to give in as well. Even if they don't Germany wouldn't have been in the economic bind it was in the late 30's without the Nazis nor would they necessarily have the problems associated with Germany's occupation of Austria, Checkoslavakia, and it's declaration of war on Poland or for that matter Hitler breaking his word right and left on the diplomatic scene.

But they had Patrons proping them up for most of that period. Who is going to prop Germany up? Furthermore North Korea is not currently and indeed I'm not sure if it ever was much of a military thereat without the support of major powers in the form of the USSR and later China. So I don't think the analogy works.

 

"Cancelling Versailles" means the disappearance of the Versailles creations, no way Britain is going to go along with that., and France is not going to stand idle as germany grows stronger, they are only too well aware they cannot win without considerable outside help, the population inbalance is just too big, so they must strike before Gerany fully rearms. The military clauses mean little unless as a first step for Germany to get back the lost territories, by force if necessary, what else would they need a large army for? I don't think any amount of diplomacy could defuse the Versailles time bomb, just delay the inevitable, the problem is most Versailles creations are fiercely nationalistic as well, creating the sort of mutual advantage trade, and political subordination that is their best chace in the face of a hugely more powerful neigfhbour is not a viable option.

Tooze is an ineresting read but uderestimates that states are in good part made up of beliefs, not hard cash, the romanticism saturated German popular opinion was not likely to look at accounts when the flags are waving, a nationalistic government is not going to fail just for economic reasons, it's power base is "in the spirtit" and it can ignore economic factors to a very large extent.

 

The Holocaust is the key to this alternative scenario. Brilliant German-Jewish scientists, instead of emigrating to the US, could have developed the atomic bomb at Peenemünde and brought Britain to her knees.

 

If we suppose a "rational" Hitler who stands pat after the absorbtion of the Czech Republic, or a "lucky-rational" Hitler who aquires western Poland and then effects a truce-peace with the Anglo-Frence alliance and then stands pat you have an analogy that fits the North Korea scenario exceedingly well.

I will adress your second point first. North Korea has one of the most militerized states there is, 1.1 million active duty personnel, 8.2 million reservists, 5,400 tanks, 2,500 AFV's, 1,000 Sp guns, 3,500 artillery tubes, 1,600 MLRS's, 1,600 aircraft and 700 naval vessels. A credible NBC arsenal and short to medium range missles to deploy them. A few months ago the most active thread on this forum had to do with a possible new Korean war breaking out and the general concensus was this would be a disaster for everyone involved.

The primary difference is that North Korea lacks easy conquests on every border. What is equally true with Nazi Germany is that launching any general war would lead to the probable destruction of themselves by enemies able to bring greater destructive force against them.

You seem to disreguard that Nazi Germany had nations willing to trade with them even when at war, Switzerland and Sweeden. In a peace scenario she would have like minded nations in Europe (Spain, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) that would have no problem trading with Germany. Then there are the Finland's, Turkey's and Ireland's who look to Berlin to keep the wolves at bay. Then there is South America where many ex-pat Germans live and where governments tended to admire Hitlers regiume.

There is also Nazi-Soviet co-operation. They would both remain paria nations and have reasons to continue some form of exchange until one or the other felt strong enough to crush the other. So long as there was any question of that Stalin would honor the border scupulously.

Finally Germany would be too important to the overall economy of Europe. As such how long could Britain and France ignore this? Would they try the carrot and stick aproach as the US and South Korea does with North Korea? Would they come to view a Nazi state as a break-water against the "godless red menace?

If you look at Hitler's many directives there were often mention of demobilizing troops to return them to the farm to meet the food shortfall, but this was after the latest victory. Clearly they knew they had a problem, but choose conquest and theft to solve this problem. If no more wars, then it becomes possible to adress this at least in part. Also a peaceful Germany has coal, weapons and technology to trade for the things they themselves cannot produce. North Korea can only trade arms.

Life in a extended Nazi Germany would not be a joy to most Germans, but even with enemy armies crossing the border and cities being pulverized from above, Hitler retained a fair degree of loyalty from the average German.

 

Both the British PM, Lloyd-George and at least one British delegate, John Maynard Keynes, were against a treaty that was ruinous to Germany already prior/during the Paris Peace Conference (Nov 1918). Politics, however, is politics. British public opinion at the time, was strongly in favour of making Germany "pay".

 

I respectfully disagree; Einstein, Born, Franck, etc migrated ca 1933: the Holocaust (deliberate murder of Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, ...) started in 1941, as opposed to harsh repression (1933), ghettoization, & imprisonment (the latter varying according grouping). The Euthenasia program of mentally disabled started 1939

It is important to keep these distasteful events distinct, otherwise we risk watering down the events of the Holocaust. It is important to also have a clear timeline of the events leading to it, when called upon to compare to other acts of repression against groups of peoples, which invariably happens by those who are misinformed, or wish to mislead.

A less radical reichstag, probably wouldn't have engaged in all-out war, would not have pushed resources into the development of an A-bomb, and the associated Physicists would have been very happy to conduct their research on more theoretical problems than the immediate destruction of England and USA. The Physicists that emigrated to the US, aided the US precisely because they understood the nature of the regime they had escaped. If there was no need to escape, then they wouldn't automatically have the desire to see England destroyed, nor to spend their time developing a weapon.

 

I respectfuly disagree too because you fail to realize that persecutions of Jews in Germany and Poland began much earlier. The final act of ultimate culmination was the Kristalnacht on 9–10 November 1938. The only difference was that majority of Jews couldn't afford yet another Exodus.

EDIT:
Nazis have started introducing new antijewish legislation alreadyIn April 1933 and since then have introduced more than 400 decrees and regulations that restricted all aspects of their public and private lives. At the end, a murder of a Jew in the Nazi Germany wasn't punishable by the Law, neither police persecuted anyone for a murder of a Jew.
EDIT2:
Below is the landing card from 1933 bearing Einstein's signature and and lists his nationality at Swiss. Meanwhile he had renounced his German citizenship.

 

I'm sorry. I'm not seeing how "I fail". As I said: those scientists emigrated ca 1933. Harsh repression started 1933, as I stated.

Kristalnacht, was not the culmination (unless you regard it as the peace time culmination). In 1938, the KZ's the arrested Jewry were sent to were not the Death Camps of the later war. Jews throughout history have faced biased laws, ghettoization, and acts of extreme violence (I'm not condoning in the least, merely stating facts). What separates the Holocaust from these other tragedies, is not the lack of laws protecting them, nor the ghettoization, but the organised deliberate mass murder, which started in 1941. You could place the start of the holocaust as that evening in 1938, when at least some 100 were killed. Kristalnacht was terrible. But so was the murder of Jews in York and London, centuries ago, and their forced expulsion 1290.

All the laws, the repression, Kristalnacht, ghettoization, it had all been suffered before (not quite on that scale, but similar events throughout history). Yes, these events lead to the Holocaust. But the worst was still yet to come. The events of Kristalnacht foreshadowed the Holocaust.

Many do consider the Holocaust started on Kristalnacht, because it marked a distinct line; no longer was the repression limited to the economical, political and social, but now became physical (incarceration, beatings, random murder). Personally, when considering the rest of history, I see this line being crossed previously, and so would rather consider the Holocaust starting with the deliberate, organised killings on massive scale. That had never happened in European history before.

During Kristalnacht, some 30 000 Jews were arrested. State-encouraged riots, random violence (including killing people), arresting people, confiscating property, and burning synagogues. Still, as terrible as this was, Nazi Germany had not yet formulated its "Final Solution". Nor were the events of Kristalnacht on a scale comparable to what the Holocaust would become: the deaths of millions, deliberately killed in Death Camps, in gas chambers.

 

@green slime

So you wouldn't leave before they start slaughtering?

 

@Tamino

What are you trying to suggest? Do you find the repetition of facts that disagree with your world view to your disliking? Please state your issue clearly.

I've repeatedly stated that what was happening to the Jews in the 1930's in Nazi Germany was a terrible, terrible thing.

But consider: (Place, Year)
Fez 1033, 1276, 1465
Granada 1066
York 1190
across Europe: 1348-1351 (in connection with the Black Plague)
Seville 1391
Lissbon 1506
Safed 1517, 1834,
Ukraine 1648-1657, 1768-1769, 1919
The Hep-Hep riots of 1819
Baghdad 1828
Warsaw 1881
Odessa 1905
Kiev 1905, 1919
Lvov 1918

There's more, but seriously, each of these events killed hundreds, if not thousands of Jews, displacing many more, destroyed businesses and lives. It is precisely this history that explains why many in the Jewish community believed they could still endure, and did not leave. If you live in a tightly knit community, with mutual support from other individuals of your persuasion, in place where your ancestors are buried, and your connection with place is strong, it is extremely difficult to get up and move somewhere else by yourself, leaving everything you know, and everything you own.

Still, 115 000 managed to flee in the 10 months following Kristalnacht, inspite of the exhorbitant cost the Nazis were requiring, IIRC, you had to pay expatriation tax, as well as forfeit almost your entire bank balance.

The Expatriation Tax alone raised some 342 million RM in 1938, the peak amount (in 1932, prior to the Nazis gaining power, it was ca 1 million RM).

Those Physicists that left in 1933 left precisely because they were well-travelled, well-read Intellegentsia, with connections abroad, and secure in the knowledge that they would find employment, and a better life. Some did not leave until they had been offered positions. Many people did not have those advantages.

Even in 1938, it was not self-evident, that things would get as bad as we now know that they became. Yes, the situation was terrible, but it would become much, much worse. As I said, not even the Nazis themselves, had yet formulated their "Final Solution".

 

Indeed, Nazis have indirectly handed over to the democracies a team of scientists who have significantly contributed to the success of the Manhattan Project.

It is not so widely known, but after leaving Germany, Einstein suggested foundation of the American Branch of International Relief Committee which assisted escape of prominent scientists from the Nazi Germany as well as from occupied territories. This organization has significantly reduced likelihood that the Nazis would ever produce a nuclear weapon.

The most important among those whom IRC brought to the USA was Edward Ede Teller, not so famous but extremely important nuclear physicist - a father of hydrogen bomb. Before he emigrated to the USA with the help from IRC in 1933 he spend two years at the University of Göttingen, Germany.

 

It is not only the scientists. Consider that Germans still had Einstein ,Fermi and other scientists during the war and let's assume that they have solved nuclear fission theory. Do you really think Nazi bureucracy would drop every other "war winning superweapon" research program and conctrate all of its resources on creating a nuclear weapon ? Considering rivalry and competition between various goverment agencies and Nazi goverment personalities , uncoordination of research activities , inbility of pooling all resources etc. Hitler's favorite superweapons were ballistic missile projects. That's where whole German R&D effort went. He saw it s a cheap and quick way for retribution against Great Britain for bombing campaign. He himself had no idea saw no future about a nuclear program and how revolutionary it might have been. US had all resources and it took them all of its resorces and four years combined to build and test one during Manhattan Project. I can not see Nazi Germany with much more limited resources and its priorties /vision much different and uncoordinated having as much effort and patience as US.