How Nazi Germany could have won WWII

[Zowert]

I would like some opinions from everyone that knows a lot about the Second World War.

There has always been the question of 'what if' Germany won World War Two? When I first thought about this, I asked myself, "Well could Germany have won? Realistically.." The more I get to thinking about it, I believe Hitler could have won if he had done a few things differently.

1. Adolt Hitler should have let his generals call the shots. Let them mobilize troops when and where they needed them, as well as allow the Wermacht to retreat and regroup if need be.

2. Hitler should have never gotten himself into a war on two fronts. He actually had a war on three fronts during the height of the war; West Europe, East Europe/Russia and the Middle East/North Africa. He spared Britain and turned to the East, leaving the Western front vulnerable to an allied invasion.

Here is what I think Hitler should have done, if he were going to have any chance at conquering Europe, Russia and part of Africa. I would like to hear your battle plan for Germany too, what you think they should have done to win the war...

Hitler should have gone East first. I don't think France or Britain would have bothered intervening if Germany and the Soviet Union went to war. Especially if Hitler could get Italy and Japan to attack Russia with him. I think the Japanese would be willing to attack Russia from the Pacific, if the Germans and Italians invaded the Soviet union through Europe.

Hitler could have waited until the until the Spring of 1940, to avoid getting stuck in a Russian winter. By the Wermacht and Luftwaffe could have built up a massive force. Italy could send troops to Germany, where they would disguise the movements of Italy and Germany doing "war games". It may raise a red flag to the Soviets but if Italy could mobilize a few hundred thousand men in a week, there would be no real time for the Soviet Union to react.

Once 5 million German and Italian troops are in country, Japan could launch a major assault on Russia from the Pacific. Drawing the Red Army to the opposite side of the country. After about a week, most of the Soviets would be concentrated on the far East side of Russia and the largest land invasion in the history of mankind could take place. It would only take a day to roll through Poland and into the Soviet Union. The Luftwaffe could bomb Russian bases, factories and transportation routes, day and night. Relentless bombing.

If executed well enough, I don't see how the Soviets could keep from collapsing and losing the war by the end of summer 1940. Unless the Soviets got some help, but who would come to their rescue? Once the USSR is conquered, Hitler could move his forces back and strike whatever kind of deal the Japanese would like. I'm sure they would ask for assistance in a future war against the United States, where Hitler could say, "Wait until I conquer Europe. Then we will gang up on the Americans. I'll attack on the East coast U.S. and you can take them on the West."

With the Soviet Union out of the picture first, France and Britain would be in DEEP trouble. Unless they could get the United States involved. If the U.S. stays out of it, then Hitler could roll right through the French. The British would be a little tougher, but they'd eventually lose once Hitler could neutralize the British Navy and find a way across the English channel. Hitler could also re-arm Soviet POWs and send them to the front lines.

Once Europe is taken, the only thing left is the United States (and Canada) but Canada would have been fighting in Europe already, aiding the U.K. So its likely most of the Canadian military would have been destroyed by this time. If the U.S. had not gotten involved early, or at least started a massive military build-up once Hitler went after France and Britain. It's likely the Germans, Japanese and Italians could take the United States.

I know this plan seems unlikely, as one simple difference could change the entire outcome. Like France and Britain aiding the Soviet Union before they could be defeated. Or the United States getting involved in Europe before Hitler could take France, etc.

For the record, i'm not a Hitler lover. I think the guy was a complete nutjob and aside from Stalin, the most evil man in history. Anyway, how do you think Nazi Germany could have successfully conquered Europe or even the entire world? If you think it was possible, even if the odds were very slim..?

 

[MG1962]

All the Nazis had to do was stop being Nazis during the invasion of the Soviet Union. If they had painted it as a liberation of the oppressed, Germany could have gained huge support from the Ukraine and Belorussians. Instead their treatment of the local, managed to make them look worse than the Soviet leadership

 

[catsmate]

Get rid of Hitler.

 

[Crossbow]

I doubt that Nazi Germany could ever won World War II. They simply tried to do too much in way too short of a time with far too little resources.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

The Nazis werent in much of a position to attack Russia in Spring of 1940.

The things about the Germans in WWII is that they never really 'got' concepts like strategy and logistics. I think this is a lot to do with the fact that most senior Nazis were just a bunch of perverts with no basic competences beyond conniving and cruelty.

So on the most fundamental level, the Germans could never have won WWII unless they somehow acquired a fundamental understanding of things they never understood.

 

[Madalch]

Germany would have found it tough to invade the Soviet Union with Poland in the way, and Britain would not have stood by and let the Nazis have Poland.

 

[Garrison]

I would like some opinions from everyone that knows a lot about the Second World War.

There has always been the question of 'what if' Germany won World War Two? When I first thought about this, I asked myself, "Well could Germany have won? Realistically.." The more I get to thinking about it, I believe Hitler could have won if he had done a few things differently.

1. Adolt Hitler should have let his generals call the shots. Let them mobilize troops when and where they needed them, as well as allow the Wermacht to retreat and regroup if need be.

If Hitler had been that rational he wouldn't have started the war in the first place.

2. Hitler should have never gotten himself into a war on two fronts. He actually had a war on three fronts during the height of the war; West Europe, East Europe/Russia and the Middle East/North Africa. He spared Britain and turned to the East, leaving the Western front vulnerable to an allied invasion.

He didn't spare Britain; Sealion was a fantasy and even if he had rounded up the entire BEF at Dunkirk it wouldn't have made much difference to Britain's military strength at the time.

Here is what I think Hitler should have done, if he were going to have any chance at conquering Europe, Russia and part of Africa. I would like to hear your battle plan for Germany too, what you think they should have done to win the war...

Hitler should have gone East first. I don't think France or Britain would have bothered intervening if Germany and the Soviet Union went to war. Especially if Hitler could get Italy and Japan to attack Russia with him. I think the Japanese would be willing to attack Russia from the Pacific, if the Germans and Italians invaded the Soviet union through Europe.

Except the Italians were useless and the Japanese had no strategic interest in attacking Siberia. their goals were China and South East Asia, so no Japan was not going to stick its neck on the chopping block for no gain.

Hitler could have waited until the until the Spring of 1940, to avoid getting stuck in a Russian winter. By the Wermacht and Luftwaffe could have built up a massive force. Italy could send troops to Germany, where they would disguise the movements of Italy and Germany doing "war games". It may raise a red flag to the Soviets but if Italy could mobilize a few hundred thousand men in a week, there would be no real time for the Soviet Union to react.

In the Egypt campaign Italy had 300,000 troops the British had 30,000. The British came close to knocking the Italians completely out of North Africa despite that. Also Italy didn't declare war on France until after France was defeated. The notion of them throwing themselves into a campaign against the Soviets is mind boggling.
Also Germany's forces in 1940 were as big as they were going to get, sparing them the moderate losses suffered in the west is going to make a marginal difference.

Once 5 million German and Italian troops are in country, Japan could launch a major assault on Russia from the Pacific. Drawing the Red Army to the opposite side of the country. After about a week, most of the Soviets would be concentrated on the far East side of Russia and the largest land invasion in the history of mankind could take place. It would only take a day to roll through Poland and into the Soviet Union. The Luftwaffe could bomb Russian bases, factories and transportation routes, day and night. Relentless bombing.

Again, the Japanese have zero interest in attacking Siberia. Even if they went crazy they wouldn't draw anything. The Soviet Armies in Siberia were more than adequate to defeat an ill equipped Japanese Army that was already largely bogged down in China and the USSR had a spy in Tokyo who clued them in on all their plans so they would have had no chance of surprise. Historically the Reich never even told the Japanese about Barbarossa, one reason why Japan didn't tell Germany about Pearl Harbour.

And the instant Germany rolls into Poland they are back at war with the West. The Luftwaffe tried relentless bombing against the much smaller UK and barely dented the industrial production. The USSR would do what it did historically, move the factories out of range of a bombing force that was intended for ground support, not strategic bombing.

If executed well enough, I don't see how the Soviets could keep from collapsing and losing the war by the end of summer 1940. Unless the Soviets got some help, but who would come to their rescue? Once the USSR is conquered, Hitler could move his forces back and strike whatever kind of deal the Japanese would like. I'm sure they would ask for assistance in a future war against the United States, where Hitler could say, "Wait until I conquer Europe. Then we will gang up on the Americans. I'll attack on the East coast U.S. and you can take them on the West."

With the Soviet Union out of the picture first, France and Britain would be in DEEP trouble. Unless they could get the United States involved. If the U.S. stays out of it, then Hitler could roll right through the French. The British would be a little tougher, but they'd eventually lose once Hitler could neutralize the British Navy and find a way across the English channel. Hitler could also re-arm Soviet POWs and send them to the front lines.

Once Europe is taken, the only thing left is the United States (and Canada) but Canada would have been fighting in Europe already, aiding the U.K. So its likely most of the Canadian military would have been destroyed by this time. If the U.S. had not gotten involved early, or at least started a massive military build-up once Hitler went after France and Britain. It's likely the Germans, Japanese and Italians could take the United States.

Again a series of impossibilities strung together does not make a plausible scenario. You really need to understand the realities of Germany's allies.

The Japanese had no interest in attacking the USSR because the strategic assets they wanted were elsewhere and they knew they were overmatched by the Soviet Armies in the region, there were good reasons why the Japanese signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviets that they stuck to right up until 1945 and it was the Soviets that broke it. They didn't get involved even when the Soviets were apparently on the brink of defeat historically, there is no way they will attack an undamaged USSR.

As for Italy it is hard to overstate how singularly useless they were as an ally in WWII. They had poor morale, poor logistics, poor equipment, and poor leadership. They didn't declare war on Britain and France until both seemed on the brink of defeat, they would be nigh on useless in an invasion of the USSR.

I know this plan seems unlikely, as one simple difference could change the entire outcome. Like France and Britain aiding the Soviet Union before they could be defeated. Or the United States getting involved in Europe before Hitler could take France, etc.

For the record, i'm not a Hitler lover. I think the guy was a complete nutjob and aside from Stalin, the most evil man in history. Anyway, how do you think Nazi Germany could have successfully conquered Europe or even the entire world? If you think it was possible, even if the odds were very slim..?

Try checking out this thread:

Is Nazi Victory ASB?

At AH.com. Oh and ASB stands for Alien Space Bats; as in the scenario would require something like divine intervention to happen.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Also Germany's forces in 1940 were as big as they were going to get, sparing them the moderate losses suffered in the west is going to make a marginal difference.

Not sure about the size, but they were certainly to increase in power.

IIRC, during the battle of France, they boasted the lofty total of 10 panzer division split amongst three army groups. And even these were dependent on Panzer I and II and Czech light tanks. There were relatively few Mk III's and fewer Mk IV's with short barrled 50mm guns.

The force they mustered for Barbarossa was a great deal more formidable.

Oh and ASB stands for Alien Space Bats; as in the scenario would require something like divine intervention to happen.

I havent read the thread but I do think it is conceivable for the Germans to have won, but this would have taken a degree strategic and logistic competence and a lack of puerile idiocy that the Nazi's were never going to have and if they had, they probably wouldnt have started the war in the first place.

 

[Garrison]

Not sure about the size, but they were certainly to increase in power.

IIRC, during the battle of France, they boasted the lofty total of 10 panzer division split amongst three army groups. And even these were dependent on Panzer I and II and Czech light tanks. There were relatively few Mk III's and fewer Mk IV's with short barrled 50mm guns.

The force they mustered for Barbarossa was a great deal more formidable.

True but the OP proposed Barbarossa or a variant in 1940, so it would have all the same limitations as the attack in the west in the same timeframe. Germany was essentially bankrupt from the costs of rearmament when war broke out in 1939. Without looting Poland and the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact that was contingent on carving up Poland Germany is going to be be in dire straits by the spring of 1940.

I havent read the thread but I do think it is conceivable for the Germans to have won, but this would have taken a degree strategic and logistic competence and a lack of puerile idiocy that the Nazi's were never going to have and if they had, they probably wouldnt have started the war in the first place.

Hitler was the guy who wins at roulette a few times in a row and thinks he has a system. If you make him more rational and reasonable then as you say Germany never gets into the war in the first place.

 

[Corsair 115]

The force they mustered for Barbarossa was a great deal more formidable.

But that stronger force was to operate in a vastly larger theatre, thus more than negating any improvement in the strength of the force. Combine that with the almost complete disregard for the daunting logistics of invading Russia, the failure of the German campaign in 1941 should not come as a surprise.

 

[DavidS]

The things about the Germans in WWII is that they never really 'got' concepts like strategy and logistics.

Right. Apparently they all ignored Clausewitz because he was merely Prussian, and Eisenhower championed interstate highways as autobahn analogues for Volkswagen beetle habitat.

Perhaps there's a kettle you should meet.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

But that stronger force was to operate in a vastly larger theatre, thus more than negating any improvement in the strength of the force. Combine that with the almost complete disregard for the daunting logistics of invading Russia, the failure of the German campaign in 1941 should not come as a surprise.

Well, as the OP was proposing Barbarossa in spring 1940..... I think you see my point when I said

The Nazis werent in much of a position to attack Russia in Spring of 1940

 

[Rwalsh]

If American would of allied with Hitler.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Right. Apparently they all ignored Clausewitz because he was merely Prussian, and Eisenhower championed interstate highways as autobahn analogues for Volkswagen beetle habitat.

Perhaps there's a kettle you should meet.

I have no idea what you're on about.

 

[Nick Terry]

The Nazis werent in much of a position to attack Russia in Spring of 1940.

The things about the Germans in WWII is that they never really 'got' concepts like strategy and logistics. I think this is a lot to do with the fact that most senior Nazis were just a bunch of perverts with no basic competences beyond conniving and cruelty.

So on the most fundamental level, the Germans could never have won WWII unless they somehow acquired a fundamental understanding of things they never understood.

The Germans had a very good idea about strategy and logistics. Their problem was that the two were fused via economics. They were literally fighting a game of Risk. Hitler had a clear set of strategic concepts through to 1944, they were just not up to coping with a two-front war against two superpowers and a great power. The bigger problem with the Germans was arguably intelligence, and a significant underestimation of their superpower opponents.

 

[Nick Terry]

But that stronger force was to operate in a vastly larger theatre, thus more than negating any improvement in the strength of the force. Combine that with the almost complete disregard for the daunting logistics of invading Russia, the failure of the German campaign in 1941 should not come as a surprise.

"almost complete disregard" is pushing it too far. The Nazis built up their logistical capabilities significantly in 1940-41 for the invasion, and had a good model for how to cope with the distances based on past experiences (eg in 1918, when they went all the way to the Caucasus without great difficulty) - i.e. using railroads (which had to be regauged, and they were) together with living off the land, even if the latter then cost them several million potential workers down the line, due to the mass starvation of POWs.

They made a strategic miscalculation to push on towards Moscow rather than going over to the defensive after Viazma-Briansk. For that battle, they assembled 2.1 million troops in the central sector including Luftwaffe forces, and the initial attack was outstandingly successful and well-supported. The subsequent pursuit after Viazma-Briansk unfolded over hundreds of kilometres, and this was when the wheels came off logistically, especially as flanking maneuvers in the attempt to encircle Moscow added considerable extra distances. Eg Rzhev to Kalinin (Tver) is 121km, Briansk to Tula is 306km.

 

[lobosrul]

1) Could Germany have won the war without the other Axis members changing? No, but they could have greatly extended it.

First, appoint someone other than an obese blustering idiot as the commander of your air forces. Instead of resorting to terror bombing of Britain, stay after the RAF. With the Luftwaffe's numerical superiority they should have been able to keep the air war over Britain, instead of being bombed themselves.

Second, bribe/blackmail/assassinate Mussolini to just stay out of the war. The whole Mediterranean/N Africa campaign drained a ton of resources away from the eastern front. Italy was worse than useless.

Third, don't declare war on the United States. Perhaps the single dumbest thing Hitler ever did was try to fight a war against the two most powerful nations in the world at the same time. The US did not declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbor, and the Tripartite Pact did not require Germany to go to Japan's aide. It was a defensive pact and Japan obviously was the aggressor.

Fourth, fight more defensively rather than through troops away. On the western front they should have withdrawn to the Siegfried line much faster, rather than allow about a dozen divisions to be destroyed in the Falaise pocket. Without that lose plus the Battle of Bulge and its somewhat doubtful that the western allies ever get to German territory.

2) Could Germany win, had their allies been better/acted differently. Yes.

In a total fantasy world where Italy has a competent and well equipped Army, and with closer cooperation between the Axis members, especially Japan, maybe. And perhaps Franco joins the war and captures Gibraltar.

As stated earlier, there is no way Japan would attack the USSR.

Japan assumed that if they attacked the Dutch/British East Indies (which is what they wanted, they had little interest in US possessions), that the US would declare war on them. Which is probably wrong, and even if correct, the US would have gone to war only reluctantly. If Japan has only British, Australian, and Dutch forces to deal with in the Pacific they could more than likely have take bases at say Columbo, and Aden. Then used those bases to attack the Suez from behind and enter the Med with the IJN available suddenly Sea Lion isn't so implausible.. That's totally lala fantasy thinking though.

 

[Nick Terry]

Second, bribe/blackmail/assassinate Mussolini to just stay out of the war. The whole Mediterranean/N Africa campaign drained a ton of resources away from the eastern front. Italy was worse than useless.

This.

The biggest might-have-been is what if the Nazis had not gone into the Balkans or the Mediterranean as a whole, especially if Mussolini had not attacked Greece. It is after all pretty improbable that Britain could have persuaded Yugoslavia to serve as a springboard for a second front.

The delay imposed by the Balkan campaign on Barbarossa was probably not enough to make the difference between 'success' or failure on the Eastern Front in 1941, but it's how the war would have panned out in 1942-43 that would really change. IMHO, there would have been immense pressure to open up a second front in 1943, since Britain would not have been involved in the Mediterranean on anything like the same scale. Italian neutrality was easily worth the forces committed to North Africa and the Balkans for garrison duty.

Instead of bombing Malta, Luftwaffe forces could have kept up the Blitz beyond the Baedeker raids; the drawback would be that RN forces would have been released to help fight the Battle of the Atlantic.

The extra panzer corps from Africa might have made a difference in the Don bend in November 1942, even if it was replacing the Italian 8th Army, while even had the Soviets pulled off a Stalingrad in this alternate scenario, if they did not have to reinforce the Mediterranean in 1943, there would have been a crucial margin of reserves to fight in Ukraine that summer around Kursk-time. Or to defend against a probable 1943 version of Overlord.

The question that would be fun to wargame is whether Britain, the Commonwealth and the US could have mounted a cross-channel invasion in 1942 or 1943, and whether it could have been thrown back. Not having to do Torch, Husky and Avalanche would mean that the resources would certainly have been there. However the invasion forces would lack experience and be up against a lot of Eastern Front veterans.

 

[MG1962]

Another area is intelligence, German estimates suggested the Soviets could muster about 115 divisions in the field. When the Germans had captured or destroyed 120 and estimated the Russians still had another 100 in reserve it began to dawn on them how deep the poop was.

Also the Germans seemed completely unaware the Japanese had been handed their backside in this battle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

 

[lobosrul]

The question that would be fun to wargame is whether Britain, the Commonwealth and the US could have mounted a cross-channel invasion in 1942 or 1943, and whether it could have been thrown back. Not having to do Torch, Husky and Avalanche would mean that the resources would certainly have been there. However the invasion forces would lack experience and be up against a lot of Eastern Front veterans.

That is what Marshall wanted to do, go directly for the throat. I read a book entitled An Army at Dawn where the author's analysis is it would have been an unmitigated disaster. The Dieppe raid x1000. Churchill wanted to do all kinds of crazy things like attack through Yugoslavia. Thankfully they compromised.

Another area is intelligence, German estimates suggested the Soviets could muster about 115 divisions in the field. When the Germans had captured or destroyed 120 and estimated the Russians still had another 100 in reserve it began to dawn on them how deep the poop was.

Also the Germans seemed completely unaware the Japanese had been handed their backside in this battle

<I can't post a website even in a quote lol>

I never knew Germany was unaware of that.

Speaking of intelligence, I should have mentioned Germany and Japan's stupid reliance on their high level codes being unbreakable through the entire war. That was huge.