Ways Germany could have won WWII

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Serb
Oh, "Blind dog" Heresson ((C) Sir Rilph) is here?
sorry man I didn't your pm, but you post crap as always.
No offense, where did you get this million?

from W³asow's army

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by korn469

*convince the Japanese to attack the Soviet Union in late 1941 instead of the USA

Would never have happened.

The U.S. embargo was strangling Japan's war effort against the Chinese. Japan had to either end the war in China or break the embargo by defeating the U.S. An attack on Siberia would have gained Japan nothing.

[The Andy-Man]

Your all missing the point. Hitler Couldn't have one. He just couldn't. The minute he started the War with the UK he was doomed, and bringing in the USSR just made things worse, combined the UK and USSR were by far out producing Germany, and if he hadn't attacked the USSR, they would have attacked him anyway.

The only chance hitler had was Britain and the USSR's lack of cash, but USSR proved after lend lease finished it could find other ways of getting what it wanted, and Britain would have been the same considering that the economy was more or less a Communist one between 39-55 (When rationing stopped).

Also, everyone is forgetting that Germany (and Japan for that matter) both new they were doomed from the start, and in 1939 the German economy just wasn't ready, so it is quite amazing what they actually did acheive. By any standards the Germans did far better then anyone could have hoped for in their position.

[Ned]

Just a couple of points.

There seems to be a consensus that Hitler's best chance of winning would have been to keep both the US and the USSR out of the war. However, most believe that the USSR would have attacked Hitler anyway. I am not sure of this. After the Non Agression pact, Stalin seemed to believe that the USSR and Germany would cooperate in defeating the UK, Holland and France worldwide. So, I believe it is possible that the USSR and Germany could have continued to coordinate their attacks.

For example, in Sept. 1941, the USSR and the Brits took Iran in a joint invasion. But, if, instead, the USSR were still cooperating with Germany, it could have been the USSR alone in Iran. This would have placed the UK/Arab alliance under a lot of pressure with a Soviet army on their borders.

At this point, Stalin could have launched a major offense into either or both the ME or India. Either by itself would have been a devastaing blow to the UK simply because it would require a major diversion of its resources to defend against the USSR.

It is also clear that the US was at "war" against Germany and Italy by the summer of '42, even before Hitler's invasion of the USSR. (Lend Lease in March, National Emergency declaration in May, freezing of German assets in early June) This is another major reason why Hitler's invasion of the USSR was stupid. He should have called a halt then and focused on defeating the UK/US alliance.

The US and the UK focused on airpower to defeat Germany. Airpower eventually destroyed Germany and severely reduced its capacity to fight - especially when their oil production was knocked out. Germany should have built up its own airforce to prevent this from happening, but also to turn the tables on the UK/US. Long range bombers could have devastated England just as much as long range bombers devastated Germany. As well, long range bombers would have dominated the Atlantic and been at least as effective if not more effective than submarines in killing the convoys.

Even so, with both the US and UK building aircraft at huge rates from '41 on, it would have required a major, sustained effort for Germany to win the airwar. This, in part, is why I suggested an earlier conversion to jets. The jet bomber could fly higher and faster than conventional fighters rendering them almost invulnerable to British and US piston fighters. The German airforce would have dominated until the Allies caught up.

Regardless, as soon as Germany achieved air supremacy and had sufficient transport capacity, it need to launch its invasion of the UK. I think this was doable by '42. But certainly, a German invasion in '41 was doomed.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
Your all missing the point. Hitler Couldn't have one. He just couldn't. The minute he started the War with the UK he was doomed, and bringing in the USSR just made things worse, combined the UK and USSR were by far out producing Germany, and if he hadn't attacked the USSR, they would have attacked him anyway.

Assume for the moment that the USSR stays on Germany's side and invades Iran in '41 (as they actually did) and threatens India and the ME.

Does your thinking that Germany was doomed the moment they declared war on the UK (it was the other way around, BTW) change?

[The Andy-Man]

Does your thinking that Germany was doomed the moment they declared war on the UK (it was the other way around, BTW) change?

The USSR wouldn't have invaded iran without britain's permission unless it wanted a world war with them, and I can't imagine anybody would want that.

And as I said, the USSR was going to invade Germany sooner or later, saying they wouldn't because of the pact is like saying Germany wouldn't attack them because of the pact. The war was about Germany vs USSR, and the war there was inevitable, Stalin just thought he would be the one to start it.

[Sandman]

The US and the UK focused on airpower to defeat Germany. Airpower eventually destroyed Germany and severely reduced its capacity to fight - especially when their oil production was knocked out. Germany should have built up its own airforce to prevent this from happening, but also to turn the tables on the UK/US. Long range bombers could have devastated England just as much as long range bombers devastated Germany. As well, long range bombers would have dominated the Atlantic and been at least as effective if not more effective than submarines in killing the convoys.

Strategic bombing did not defeat Germany. It's industrial output continued rising until the end of the war, despite the bombing campaign. The raids on the oil refineries were one of the few successes.

The Germans lacked any large strategic bombers, so their raids were always going to be less effective than a British or American raid.

Strategic bombers are not effective against ships, the target is too small, and the plane is too high.

Even so, with both the US and UK building aircraft at huge rates from '41 on, it would have required a major, sustained effort for Germany to win the airwar. This, in part, is why I suggested an earlier conversion to jets. The jet bomber could fly higher and faster than conventional fighters rendering them almost invulnerable to British and US piston fighters. The German airforce would have dominated until the Allies caught up.

A major sustained effort was not on the cards. Hitler was haunted by the collapse of Germany in the First World War.

The jet fighters were hardly invulnerable. The propellor fighters could still outmanuever them, and the jets were vulnerable to attack when taking off and landing.

Regardless, as soon as Germany achieved air supremacy and had sufficient transport capacity, it need to launch its invasion of the UK. I think this was doable by '42. But certainly, a German invasion in '41 was doomed.

The problem with this scenario is that you think that Britain would remain static for a year. The Germans could hardly hide a massive navy building programme (which would probably take far longer than one year), and in the meantime, Britain would improve the defenses and the army would grow far too large for any German attack to succeed. The Germans would also not have their high quality tanks developed as a response to the T-34.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man


The USSR wouldn't have invaded iran without britain's permission unless it wanted a world war with them, and I can't imagine anybody would want that.

And as I said, the USSR was going to invade Germany sooner or later, saying they wouldn't because of the pact is like saying Germany wouldn't attack them because of the pact. The war was about Germany vs USSR, and the war there was inevitable, Stalin just thought he would be the one to start it.

As to the first point, would the UK have declared war on the USSR if it invaded Iran without British "permission"?

I think this is highly unlikely given that they did not declare war after USSR invasions of Poland, Finland and IIRC Romania. The US and the UK were trying to get the USSR to come over the the Allied side. Nothing would have provoked the Allies into a declaration of war on the USSR, IMHO.

As to Stalin invading Germany - certainly the UK and the US would have welcomed such an invasion. But the UK and the US were anti-communist almost as much as Germany. Why would Stalin switch sides? Everyone here simply states that the USSR would have invaded Germany at some point in time. But is this really true?

Observe that that the USSR did not invade the West after the cold war began. Why? It certainly could have won - at least initially - because of its overwhelming superiority in Europe. But it did not. This tells me that it was not inevitable that the USSR would attack Hitler - especially if Germany made the major investments in air power and nuclear weapons they should have done. The German air force would simply have destroyed a Soviet invasion.

[Ned]

Sandman, If the Germans developed long-range jet bombers earlier, the UK would have been totally defenseless against them until they developed their own high altitude jets.

I am not certain why long range bombers would not have been effective against convoys. The Germans had developed radio-guided missiles that could be "flown" into ships. Also, they could have developed, as had the Japanese, low level torpedo attacks on shipping. The bombers did not have to use conventional bombs.

As to the Allied airpower, it was highly effective. The crippling of German oil supplies and ball bearing production was cited by every high level German as the major reason they lost the war. Many also cited the crippling of their transportation system.

Imagine if England had no oil or ball bearings and its railway system were destroyed. How could it continue to resist a German air offensive?

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by Ned


As to the first point, would the UK have declared war on the USSR if it invaded Iran without British "permission"?

I think this is highly unlikely given that they did not declare war after USSR invasions of Poland, Finland and IIRC Romania. The US and the UK were trying to get the USSR to come over the the Allied side. Nothing would have provoked the Allies into a declaration of war on the USSR, IMHO.

As to Stalin invading Germany - certainly the UK and the US would have welcomed such an invasion. But the UK and the US were anti-communist almost as much as Germany. Why would Stalin switch sides? Everyone here simply states that the USSR would have invaded Germany at some point in time. But is this really true?

Observe that that the USSR did not invade the West after the cold war began. Why? It certainly could have won - at least initially - because of its overwhelming superiority in Europe. But it did not. This tells me that it was not inevitable that the USSR would attack Hitler - especially if Germany made the major investments in air power and nuclear weapons they should have done. The German air force would simply have destroyed a Soviet invasion.

The USSR wouldn't have invaded Iran for reasons stated, so what would have happened if they had seems a moot point. And remember, the UK didn't declare war on russia for poland and finland because they were not in the british sphere of influence.


And yes it is true, Stalin was going to invade, I beleive he was even setting up air bases for the invasion, and if he wasn't hostile to hitler, I hardly think stalin would have erected that massive line of fortifications/troops that the germans just smashed through.


The reason that the USSR didn't invade europe in 1945 is because if they had, the USA would have nuked them to hell.

And if Germany would have been so capable at defeating a Soviet invasion, how come a comparitivly backward and deficcient army made up largly of non-proffesional soldiers, lack of wepons and ammo, and lack of leadership just steamrollerd into berlin between 1943-45?

[Ned]

The AndyMan, On the USSR '43 - '45, the USSR had by then come a very long way and had superiority over the Germans in numbers of troops and tanks. As Kursk proved, the Germans could no longer conduct a major offensive. But in mobile warfare, the advantage is to the party on the offensive.

As to nuking Russia, I think this all changed in '49 when the Russians got bomb as well. They still did not attack.

As to Iran, you a probably right. The USSR probably did not want a war with the UK. But this is also consistent with not wanting a war with Germany which at that time had the means of defeating the USSR which the UK did not. If the USSR was avoiding war with the UK, it surely was avoiding war with Germany as well.

Building fortifications in the West on the frontier with Germany is more consistent with a defensive strategy than an offensive strategy. If they wanted an offensive strategy, they needed to invest heavily in infrastructure such as railways and roads so that supplies could flow smoothly to the front. They would have also moved critical defense industries deeper into the USSR. This they did not do until the Germans attacked.

[Sandman]

Sandman, If the Germans developed long-range jet bombers earlier, the UK would have been totally defenseless against them until they developed their own high altitude jets.

The Germans would have had to sacrifice research in some other area. Tank design maybe? Or how about ground support aircraft?
In any case, the higher the altitude the less effective the bombing.

I am not certain why long range bombers would not have been effective against convoys. The Germans had developed radio-guided missiles that could be "flown" into ships. Also, they could have developed, as had the Japanese, low level torpedo attacks on shipping. The bombers did not have to use conventional bombs.

If long range bombers attack from a low altitude, they are a snack for anti-aircraft guns.
You seem to be thinking of small torpedo bomber and dive bomber craft, which would have insufficient fuel to 'control the Atlantic'.
In an era without good navigation equipment, there's no sense in sending planes with limited fuel supplies over the open ocean, where they can easily be lost.

As to the Allied airpower, it was highly effective. The crippling of German oil supplies and ball bearing production was cited by every high level German as the major reason they lost the war. Many also cited the crippling of their transportation system.

Yet their industrial production continued to rise. It also increased German resolve to fight to the bitter end, and assisted Hitler's propaganda machine. The Germans also decentralised their production and moved it out of range of bomber attack.

[GePap]

I am surprised by some of the notions that drift around here...

When trying to think of changes in history, you can't possibly assume that all factors remain independent. Take Serbs' claim that by 1944, without a war, the SU would still have had SU-152's, IS-2's and so forth: why? These weapon systems were designed during the war, due to how the war was going. Same for German {Panthers, or jets, or American and British weapons for that matter. Once you decide to change one event you better provide damn good reasons why an event that happeend in real life still would have happend, without the same given consequences. NO one here has done so. So you can't assume the US would still have nukes in '45, or the SU in 49, or assume B-29's or Il-2 flyoing around just cause they came out of thin air...

Germany was stronger than both the UK and France. Once a War with France was won, and areas like Central Europe under German control or allied to germany, the effectivness of any blocaked would have been minimal.

I agree with Kepler what whether Germany would have ever won the war is a question of German aims. Ifw e assume their aims remain the same, I think winning the war would have been difficult. After all, their aim was the complete remaking of Europe, the extermination of whole nations and the extermination of whole ideas. This is a huge things to do, even for a rich, modern state like Germany. And it woul meet with immense opposition.

As I said before, Germany should have waited to knock the UK significantly out of the war, if just for a few years, to iundertake thier eastern campaign, a cmapaign that was inevitable. There is a fine book that speaks about Russian diplomacy from 37-41 Grand Delusion by Gabriel Gorodetsky that shows how the SU was trying to better postion itself as the European balance of power changed, mainly agaisnt it as Germanys eucred Yugoslavia and Romania. I think many miss the fact the the SU viewed the UK as much of a threat as Germany until very late, including interpreting UK moves towards Turkey as anti-Soviet moves.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'm surprised no one stated "Germany and Japan realize their cryptological codes were comprimised". In doing so they would have been able to reverse the incredible strokes of 'good fortune' the allies had in eliminating the naval threat as well as understanding land threats.

[Ned]

GePap, I agree with what you say. Had Hitler decided to focus on the UK, he would have focused on winning the battle for air supremacy over England and winning the battle of the Atlantic.

As we learned later, sending low altitude bombers on unescorted missions deep into enemy territory is very expensive in terms of men and machines. This is why I think Germany's solution would have been high altitude jet bombers. They actually had these in use in late '44 They could have had them years earlier if Hitler had made it a priority.