Ways Germany could have won WWII

[Ned]

Faboda, Another scenario that makes sense. Germany may have been able to beat the USSR so long ans it does not also have to fight the US and the UK (and vis-a-versa). Everyone says that the war with Russia was inevitable. No one says the same about the war with either the UK or the United States.

Assuming Poland stays neutral between Germany and the USSR, Hitler could have attacked out of Finland, Czechoslovakia and Romania.

Is there a major problem with this from a logistics point of view?

[Heresson]

http://komanda.narod.ru/vlasov.html

It is a Russian link, and Russians are continuing Soviet tradition towards history.

that Soviets were nazi freinds and brothers in arms?

In fact they were, but that's not what I mean to say.

Sorry, I use no internet sources. I'd have to look for it.
And I don't know where. I'll try.

[Vanguard]

Assuming no war in Europe until 1944, then the Soviets might have developed an atom bomb before the US. Without the war, the US government would have had neither the money nor the organization to pursue the Manhatten project. The Soviets however had plenty of potential enemies and enough resources, especially surplus electrical generation, to develop a bomb.

While I'm sure that the Soviets found Fuchs and the Rosenberg's espionage helpful, the fact is that atomic weaponry isn't really that complicated. Provided that you have a sufficiently large amount of fissile material, designing a method to assemble it into a critical mass is a solvable problem.

I doubt, however, that such a hypothetical bomb would be available much before the actual Soviet bomb was completed, without the pressure of war or cold war to push the project.

[David Floyd]

Assuming no war in Europe until 1944, then the Soviets might have developed an atom bomb before the US

It would be interesting to see how serious their efforts actually were, prior to the outbreak of war, and even prior to the revelation that the bomb would actually work. Anyone have a source on that?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned
Faboda, Another scenario that makes sense. Germany may have been able to beat the USSR so long ans it does not also have to fight the US and the UK (and vis-a-versa). Everyone says that the war with Russia was inevitable. No one says the same about the war with either the UK or the United States.

Assuming Poland stays neutral between Germany and the USSR, Hitler could have attacked out of Finland, Czechoslovakia and Romania.

Is there a major problem with this from a logistics point of view?

I think war with the UK/US was quite inevitable, the only reason it hasn't been mentioned as such is because it is taken as a given. In your scenario, you're assuming no attack west, but a straight thrust east. It seems to me that as soon as Hitler made aggressive moves into independent countries (ie:the rest of Czechoslovakia, Romania, USSR), France at least would get involved. Now, you may claim that Hitler had already made aggressive moves, but they had all been diplomatically backed, however faulty you may have seen that be on the allies part. I think an actual mobilization of troops would have sparked France into action. This would necessarily draw Britain in, and so on. However, the war in the west would obvioulsy have taken on a different character, which may have been interesting. Still, Germany would have to have pulled some of its forces west to defend against the attacks, which could prove to be worse for Hitler in the long run, fighting two major fronts from the get go instead of in '44.

[Ned]

Kontiki, Now, why in the world would France declare war on Germany for attacking the USSR? I assume here that Germany does not attack Poland, and that Finland and Romania are German allies. Slovakia was already occuppied by 1939, IIRC. The USSR was hated by everyone - even more than Hitler.

[David Floyd]

Kontiki, France was not going to do anything without a 100% guarantee from Britain.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Ned
Kontiki, Now, why in the world would France declare war on Germany for attacking the USSR? I assume here that Germany does not attack Poland, and that Finland and Romania are German allies. Slovakia was already occuppied by 1939, IIRC. The USSR was hated by everyone - even more than Hitler.

Germanies militairy forces were very restricted under the Versaille treaty. Now, Hitler managed to bypass the treaty for some time, but he would not have been able to build up a large enough force to defeat the USSR without that being noticed. While France and the UK may have had some incentive to destroy communism, they had (and HAVE for that matter, see their opposition to German unification in the 90's) historically much more to fear from Germany, and NO WAY they would have allowed for a large German army just with the promise it would only be used against the Soviets.

Let alone the fact that one way of bypassing the Versaille treaty was in fact that Germany and the USSR signed a pact wherein German forces could train in the east, IIRC even on Russian soil. Hitler was well aware that before he could hope to defeat communism, he had to take out the 'Imperialists' first. Don't forget that Nazism could not co-exist together with the large Imperiums that existed to that date. Up to a certain point, both Nazism and Communism had the same ennemies, and both Stalin and Hitler were aware of that. Just as they were aware that their Pact could only last for a limited time: sooner or later they would also stand on opposite sides.

[Darius871]

Your sources are Japanese/based on Japanese propaganda. Feel better now?

No, because you give me no reason to believe my sources are biased. The assessment was made by an unbiased Western historian in 1985 who looked at unclassified Kwangtung Army reports that no one was ever meant to see. Meanwhile, the ridiculous 61,000 casualties, 20,000 KIA figures are what the USSR CLAIMED that it inflicted. Which of these two sources are you going to trust?

And I quote, directly from the Oxford Companion for Military History, page 474, paragraph 7:

The USSR admitted 18,500 casualties, and claimed to have inflicted 61,000

Since your source's information is identical, I can assume whatever source you speak of is derived from that claim, and therefore unreliable as far as I'm concerned. I've told you what's wrong with your evidence, now tell me what's wrong with mine.

Btw, I still have yet to see you post your source; you did post them regarding the air war and logistics, but afaik you could be pulling your casualty and KIA figures out of your ass.

I said lost 61 000 not, "61 000 were KIA"!

I never said that you said 61,000 died, you apparently assumed I did.

Digs into official files of country of rising sun, right? I don't see any other explanation. How the hell in case of devastating defeat, in case when the side that lost battle could have the same loss ratio as country that encircled enemy forces, had total air-superiority and much stronger (both in terms of quality and numbers) tank and artilery units?

Here's your explanation, because the dazzling victory is a myth shoveled down your throat. The source is unbiased.

Both sides had about 132 000 soldiers, more then 1000 guns, about 700 tanks, about 800 planes.

Could I get a source on this too? The book I quoted from above says the following in the same paragraph:

Zhukov built up a force of 65,000 Soviet and Mongolian forces against 28,000 Japanese and Manchurian troops.

The Japanese were outnumbered almost 3 to 1 by an enemy that also had complete superiority in armor and better logistical support. Despite this, they still managed to inflict almost equal casualties. Putting two and two together, I find this victory to be very mediocre, and I also contend that it has no bearing on a 1941 invasion, since in that case it would be fought in a different place, with different troops, with more troops, with more planes, with the navy involved, with higher stakes, and of course also fought against a completely different Russia as it was already beleaguered to the west. Apples and oranges, plain and simple.

if it was true, and kill/loss ratio was acceptable for JIA, they would try to attack SU again, when Soviets were in great troubles.

Had Soviets lost (or won with acceptable kill/loss ratio like1:1 like your sources tells), they would be in big troubles in 1941, because in this case Japan would attacked 100%.

There were NUMEROUS other reasons that they did not attack the SU again, not just analyzing kill ratios in a border skirmish. I see one major pattern in your logic on this and many other subjects: you alway seem to think there is one reason for everything in the world, instead of considering the many other factors involved. Japan would NOT necessarily attacked '100%'; there were other factors that led to their 'go south' decision, oil being the biggest one. Their defeat at Nomonhan was A reason for not attacking Russia in '41, not THE reason. That is my only point, can't you at least agree with that?

if it was absolutely clear from the beggining that Soviets will win, then WHY Japanese attacked?

Get your facts straight, they didn't 'attack' the Soviet Union in 1939, and they barely even 'attacked' Mongolia. They advanced to occupy the disputed terrain between the Soviet-claimed border to the Khalkin-Gol river (which the Japanese claimed as the border) in late May and ended the dispute, or so they thought.

On August 19, a full three months later, the Soviets attacked the Japanese troops in the disputed region, and won the victory known as Nomonhan. The Japanese were NOT conquering Mongolia and they most certainly were NOT attacking the Soviet Union. They occupied a heavily disputed border region and were subsequently pushed out.

At any rate, a second and simpler answer to your question could be that the Japanese Imperial Staff were miscalculating morons, which describes virtually all of their involvement in World War II.

In accordance with doctrines of that time, attacking side should have at least tree times more forces then defensive side.

Are you joking? Ever heard of a little thing called BARBAROSSA? The Germans were horribly outnumbered, but they had quality over quantity and inflicted hugely disproportionate casualties, as David has repeatedly pointed out.

Example of pure propaganda is both Soviet and Japanese claims made in 1940:
Soviet "Izvestya": Japan lost 660 planes, USSR lost 143.

Japanese "Domoy Tsusin" (Sp?): Japan lost 138 planes, USSR lost 1370.

Exactly what I meant; that is why I decided to not use any purely Soviet OR Japanese sources. Meanwhile, you are accepting Soviet claims as fact, without hesitating for a moment that the USSR might have lied. They certainly don't have much of a reputation for full disclosure.

1) it wasn't a draw in terms of man-to-man ratios.

According to your biased source.

[GePap]

The Germans were not horribly outnumbered during operation barbarossa. They had 3.5 million men, German, Finn, Hungarian, and Romanian troops available to fight, while the Soviets had 4 million in the western sectors. 3.5 v 4 is not a huge difference, given the Germans superiority in quality of training.

[Az]

I doubt that the germans had much superiority in the quality of training. They were mostly conscripts, right? (esp. the Romanians and Hungarians.)

[Urban Ranger]

Faboba,

If Germany didn't first grab Alsace/Lorraine etc then France, it would have even less resources to build the military machine with. It means the Nazis had to wait longer or attack with a lower strength. But if Hitler waited longer, there would be even a bigger gap between the Nazi and Soviet forces, it also means that effects of Stalin's purge on the military would have lessened to some extent. If Hitler attacked with fewer troops, it just means the Germans would get stopped sooner.

[Silpy]

There is a few things which could of swung it in his favour:

1938. Start full mobalisation, consription and rationing. (Really didnt start until 1942)

1939. Building only U-boats instead of new ships. Could of built so many more.

1940. Avoid invading Norway. Too much of a drain for the Army to defend.
.Destroy the British armies at Dunkurk. Destroy a large portion of the British Army.
. When bombing the UK, aim at first at the radar towers. The RAF is now blind.
.Get Franco to occupy Gibraltar. Block the Med to the RN.
.Invade the UK, but soon as you win, leave with generous (to the UK) treaty. UK now freindly.

1941. Dont invade Russia.
. If you have to invade Russia, put your policy as a anti-imperalist (appeal to the Ukranians, and other minorites) anti-Stalin liberation (appeal to most Russians)
. Go straght to Moscow before the Winter.
. Dissasoate youreslf from Japan.
. Knock out Malta. Goodbye annoying outpost.

1942. Forget Africa. Too far away.

I beleve, if only some of these were implemented, Germeny would of won ( or at least, suvived longer )
Date is when it should of been implemented.

[mandarin]

Quite frankly who the hell cares besides some nazi sympathisers and rabid anti-semites.

Any rational sane human being wouldnt even begin to envision a world under Hitlerism.

The thought alone is an anathema to me...thank g-d the allies did smash his (Deutschland ) skull long its length and breadth.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned
Kontiki, Now, why in the world would France declare war on Germany for attacking the USSR? I assume here that Germany does not attack Poland, and that Finland and Romania are German allies. Slovakia was already occuppied by 1939, IIRC. The USSR was hated by everyone - even more than Hitler.

I think you are vastly underestimating the hatred the French had for the Germans, stemming back to the Franco-Prussian war (and most likely before). Keep in mind, it was the French who marched troops into the Rhineland in attempts to ensure payback. Also, you seem to think that there were no limits to how far Britain and France would let Germany go just because of appeasement. You're right about the USSR not being popular, but France and Germany weren't that stupid. Germany was a much more real and proximate threat to them both, and the possibility of adding the vast potential of the Soviet Union to Germany's industrial might would have been unacceptable. Had Germany struck east, there's no doubt in my mind that France would have seized the opportunity (granted, with British support) to attack Germany's western flank.

The bottom line is, both Britain and France wanted to avoid war, but they wouldn't have just sat around and done nothing. There was a reason that there was a massive arms race leading up to WWII.