Ways Germany could have won WWII

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I doubt they would be that vulnerable. It wouldn't have taken even a quarter of the forces to take the ME that were thrown against the SU in 1941.

Yes, but the supply lines ran along the Soviet border. Germany needed to guard the whole line heavily, which would remove a large part of the fighting forces.

Besides, if Germany invaded a neutral country, there could be all kinds of things waiting to happen.

[Drake Tungsten]

Besides, if Germany invaded a neutral country, there could be all kinds of things waiting to happen.

Nothing happened when they invaded neutral Holland, Belgium and Norway...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by JCG
IIRC, Japan attacked the Soviets yes, but a couple of years before 1941.
And well, surely they would have gotten their butts kicked a second time, but that would mean diverting a fair number of SU forces, resources and time from the main front. If done correctly, it would be a nicely sprung trap.

There were two engagements. Once in August 1938 on a division level, ended with IJA retreating. Second time was in May to September 1939, ending in the crushing defeat of the IJA. After that, Japan shifted focus to southward expansion, so in 1941 its forces would be totally out of position.

Also, the Soviets always maintained a large garrison in Siberia.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Nothing happened when they invaded neutral Holland, Belgium and Norway...

Sure, but that doesn't mean nothing would happen the next time around.

[Lord Merciless]

Germany would have never developed the atomic bomb. They spent lots of effort developing the Deuterium and Tritium, all key ingredients of the hydrogen bomb. But without have the fission bomb, Deuteriums and Tritiums are pretty harmless stuff.

Heisenberg either intentionally sabotaged his own research, or he had never figured out that fission bomb would have worked.

[ravagon]

Re: Ways Germany could have won WWII

3 Major points I can think of:-

(1) Germany didn't fully gear its economy/industry towards war until mid 43' IIRC. Even after they had there was just too little focus to it. Little provision for winter-fighting in the USSR. Diversion of resources to their never-realized blue-water Navy. Beginning the useless mass-destruction bombing campaigns against British cities that led to the reprisals against their own industry. Beginning a 3rd front in North Africa. The list goes on...

(2) The very basis of their expansion East was too rigid and very wasteful. Lebenstraum. Wehrmacht soldiers were showered with flowers and hailed as liberators in the baltics and even the Ukraine and Georgia. A year later, having found out how much worse off they were under Nazi rule, partizan was activity was rampant just when German supply lines were stretched most and losses mounting.
If they'd avoided being seen for what they were until after the USSR's defeat they might have avoided much of this.

(3) Bringing the US openly into the war was a very foolish move. Rather than arrogance in their own supremacy they should've pressured Japan into the "back-door" approach. Japan itself was more inclined to this course until convinced to go after US/British possessions in the south. Furthermore an accomedation with Chiang in China, thereby freeing up units for an Invasion from the East, combined with an offensive against the Soviets could well have brought about a relaxation of the US embargo.
Even at this stage the US was hardly well-inclined to the USSR, particularly given their stance during the German 1940 offensive in Western Europe.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

The production power would still not rival that of the US, but American carrier-based aircraft wouldn't be able to take on Germany's land-based aircraft. America's only strong ally would be Russia, but with a blockade at Leningrad, Russia would be inaccessible.

Don't underestimate the capabilities of carrier based aircraft vs land based. Many more land based aircraft have been destroyed by carrier based aircraft than vice versa. This is due to the fact that carrier based aircraft can concentrate so easily, while their "base" is heavily protected by AA and CAP and most importantly, mobile. They could move at over 30 knots, which means that they could move into range at night, launch their planes before dawn, move back out of range and to another position from which they could recover their planes. There is very little chance that they could be touched by enemy aircraft, especially in enough numbers to take out a carrier.

The only thing that carrier aircraft lacked was range / payload. But the fighter bombers could tear up enemy airfields etc. very well. The U.S. had a lot of carriers by the later stages of the war, and could have had a lot more a lot earlier if they were willing to refit fast troop ships as carriers.

As for blockading Russia, what about the Murmansk route, or Vladivostok, or through Iran, or through the Black Sea? One of these routes should be open to the Allies.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Germany would have never developed the atomic bomb. They spent lots of effort developing the Deuterium and Tritium, all key ingredients of the hydrogen bomb. But without have the fission bomb, Deuteriums and Tritiums are pretty harmless stuff.

Heisenberg either intentionally sabotaged his own research, or he had never figured out that fission bomb would have worked.

I think Heisenberg was uncertain which research path was best.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Ways Germany could have won WWII

Originally posted by ravagon
Furthermore an accomedation with Chiang in China, thereby freeing up units for an Invasion from the East, combined with an offensive against the Soviets could well have brought about a relaxation of the US embargo.

That's implausable. It would involve Japan completely retreating out of China, including Manchuria. Remember Japan invaded China in 1931, so Japan would never leave on its own accord. Chiang could not and would not cease resisting Japan. Not after the Nanjing Massacre. If he tried his own army would kill him in a second. Also there was the CCP to contend with. CCP troops hindered a very large number of IJA troops by guerrilla warfare.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by Sikander


I think Heisenberg was uncertain which research path was best.

So, your position is he lacked the momentum?

Depends what you think the ultimate German war aims were. Assume, against a lot of evidence, that they were sane.

1) Break the possibility of being encircled by France, USSR, and the British Navy.

2) Superstate of all German-speaking peoples.

3) Vassalage, dependent alliance, or neutrality of immediate northern and southern border states.

4) Sea openings to the North, Baltic, and Mediterranean.

5) Postwar power status on a level with US and USSR.


I think if they restrict themselves to this, they can do it.

1. Ally with Italy but maintain strict neutrality with Imperial Japan.

2. Same lightning strikes east through Poland (divide it with the Russians) and west through the lowlands and France to establish the western occupation as bargaining chip.

3. No Blitz. Win the air war from the RAF over occupied territory without bombing British civilian targets.

4. No Barbarossa. If the Russians want to attack along that loooooooooong front against the dug-in best infantry and tank divisions of the Wehrmacht, let em come. Keep the diplomacy at a fever pitch with Stalin, kill the anti-commie rhetoric (the way the US did during the war). As the Japanese make mainland progress against China, the Russians might go that way instead of against the harder German troops.

5. No genocide of slavs, Jews, etc. OK, this probably isn't essential (Stalin got away with it and stayed stable), but this is my alternative history, so there you go. Obviously, it would have helped Germany retain intellectual vigor if it had not been busy murdering its brightest people (though Stalin got away with that too).

6. Make it obvious at all times that Germany will willingly make peace with England and the United States, leave all of territorial France except Alsace-Lorraine, and restore the Lowland nations as a demilitarized zone, restore Slovakia.

What Germany gets out of this is: a superpower state whose physical boundaries encompass current Germany, Austria, Denmark, Czech Republic, western Poland. Intimidating military influence over the Lowlands, France, their Italian ally. An iron curtain stalemate with the Russians from eastern Europe down through the Balkans. The post-war anti-colonial movements get rid of British global reach. The world settles down to a cold war rivalry between the USSR and China in the far east, and an economic rivalry between the UK, Germany, and the US in the west which eventually ends with US hegemony in the western hemisphere and German economic hegemony in Europe. The US, USSR, and Germany all get the bomb at about the same time (12-18 months after the European armistice) and stabilize the tripolar cold war.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


There are things called bombers and tanks. Bombers take out the arti, tanks overrun machine guns.

Easy.

There are things called AT Guns and AA Guns.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
There are things called AT Guns and AA Guns.

Your basic premise is false. There was no way that the Germans could reduce their forces in the East hoping to hold ground with static defenses. They would have been decimated in no time.

[Jaguar]

It works in civ . Russia didn't have many bombers either. Their only effective way of breaking the line would be with tanks.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kepler


So, your position is he lacked the momentum?

Hell, I'm moving so fast I have no idea where I am on this one anymore.

[Az]

Russia didn't have many bombers either.

check your numbers again. Russia would have been very tough to beat on the offensive.