The plausibility of a Nazi Victory

[NWO Sentryman]

I've been having quite a bit of discussion on Alternatehistory.com about why a Nazi Victory is implausible. I even wrote an essay about it. But why do people assume that a Nazi victory was extremely likely rolleyes and that any cold war with America would have been a rollover for the Nazis?

I mean, look at Man in the High Castle and you'll understand what i mean.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Unless Nazi Germany gained the resources of the Ukraine during Operation Barbarossa, I don't see how they could've matched the US's resource base. And the elevation of America's manufacturing base was something to behold. So I'm hard pressed to see why people say this myself. I wouldn't mind seeing some arguments behind that.

 

[ddt]

Unless Nazi Germany gained the resources of the Ukraine during Operation Barbarossa, I don't see how they could've matched the US's resource base.

And even when they had, I don't see it. The Nazis were hailed in by many Ukrainians as liberators, not surprising considering the treatment they had gotten from Uncle Joe. However, it took mere weeks for them to discover they had traded in Baal for Beelzebub. With the Nazis' racial ideas about Slavs, they would have had an endless struggle with the local population even if Barbarossa had gone better for them.

I don't see how they could have kept that up against an economically superior, and geographically virtually invulnerable enemy as the US.

 

[Cainkane1]

And even when they had, I don't see it. The Nazis were hailed in by many Ukrainians as liberators, not surprising considering the treatment they had gotten from Uncle Joe. However, it took mere weeks for them to discover they had traded in Baal for Beelzebub. With the Nazis' racial ideas about Slavs, they would have had an endless struggle with the local population even if Barbarossa had gone better for them.

I don't see how they could have kept that up against an economically superior, and geographically virtually invulnerable enemy as the US.

I have often wondered how the war with Russia would have gone had the Germans befriended the Ukranians. Heck if the USA had invaded the Ukrain we'd had had over a million of their men in uniform fighting for us.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And even when they had, I don't see it. The Nazis were hailed in by many Ukrainians as liberators, not surprising considering the treatment they had gotten from Uncle Joe. However, it took mere weeks for them to discover they had traded in Baal for Beelzebub. With the Nazis' racial ideas about Slavs, they would have had an endless struggle with the local population even if Barbarossa had gone better for them.

I don't see how they could have kept that up against an economically superior, and geographically virtually invulnerable enemy as the US.

Yes, even with resources, they still couldn't outmass the US. Granted, the US didn't realize it at the beginning of the war, but well into it, I think they finally realized they could bring to bear a better equipped, bigger military.

Then again, a lot of this is hindsight. I don't recall what the US assessment of Germany's production was at the time. We know now that they were desperate for resources - hence the Eastern campaigns; looking back, the Caucausus oil fields were probably the number one necessity - but during the war itself, I have no idea how well the US understood the German resource picture.

 

[Praktik]

Well, I think the only shot they had was not fighting a two-front war. If they had found some way to do one at a time, such as doing the Soviets before France, Belgium, Holland etc, then they mighta had a shot.

I guess the politics of Poland made it difficult what with the guarantees of France and the UK - but part of me thinks a war focused on the Soviets may have had some moral support from the West, who were very keen to see the outcome of the revolution reversed.

One other thought I had was that if Germany wasn't run by one single man, or at least if that man was more willing to listen to his generals, that the outcome could very well have been different. The biggest thing that sunk the germans was the need to respond to the ill-founded whims of a man who wasn't always making the right calls...

 

[Nonpareil]

I don't see how they could have kept that up against an economically superior, and geographically virtually invulnerable enemy as the US.

The geographic location of the US is what makes me think that Germany would have lost the war even if Barbarossa had succeeded. We're isolated, except to the north and south, where we have, if not allies, then at least not-enemies. And it would be difficult for the Germans to have gotten enough manpower across the ocean to get a foothold.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The geographic location of the US is what makes me think that Germany would have lost the war even if Barbarossa had succeeded. We're isolated, except to the north and south, where we have, if not allies, then at least not-enemies. And it would be difficult for the Germans to have gotten enough manpower across the ocean to get a foothold.

Unless the Germans pull off the Sea Mammal*, then i think the Americans would have at least a fair chance of winning the war.

* i know, i said it.

 

[Praktik]

The geographic location of the US is what makes me think that Germany would have lost the war even if Barbarossa had succeeded. We're isolated, except to the north and south, where we have, if not allies, then at least not-enemies. And it would be difficult for the Germans to have gotten enough manpower across the ocean to get a foothold.

Hey Trudeau hasn't been PM for over two decades!

 

[Nonpareil]

Hey Trudeau hasn't been PM for over two decades!

I tried to come up with something witty to say here, but failed. So I'd like you to all pretend that I said something really, really funny, and nominate me.

 

[ddt]

Well, I think the only shot they had was not fighting a two-front war. If they had found some way to do one at a time, such as doing the Soviets before France, Belgium, Holland etc, then they mighta had a shot.

Frankly, I don't think the Soviets would have surrendered - even when Moscow had fallen. That would have left the Nazis with a severely weakened enemy, but still fighting on a very long, stretched front, and a gigantic area where partisans would pop up all over the place.

I guess the politics of Poland made it difficult what with the guarantees of France and the UK - but part of me thinks a war focused on the Soviets may have had some moral support from the West, who were very keen to see the outcome of the revolution reversed.

Some moral support, but definitely not morethan that.

One other thought I had was that if Germany wasn't run by one single man, or at least if that man was more willing to listen to his generals, that the outcome could very well have been different. The biggest thing that sunk the germans was the need to respond to the ill-founded whims of a man who wasn't always making the right calls...

To some extent, the UK and the USSR also suffered from this - Churchill and Stalin also liked very much to dabble in military matters. I don't think Hitler's wrong calls on military strategy and tactics were decisive in the outcome. To what extent did his generals object to Barbarossa as projected? Partially, Barbarossa failed due to German unpreparedness to the Russian winter and the long logistics lines. Apart from that, Hitler's singular biggest blunder was declaring war on the US - it gave Roosevelt the excuse he needed to convince Congress to help the UK and the SU in the European theater.

Unless the Germans pull off the Sea Mammal*, then i think the Americans would have at least a fair chance of winning the war.

* i know, i said it.

What joke am I missing here?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

What joke am I missing here?

Operation Sealion. Called the Unmentionable Sea Mammal on AH.com because it was nigh impossible, and new members often made threads about Sealion in the old days assuming it was going to be a swift nazi victory.

 

[seayakin]

Well, I think the only shot they had was not fighting a two-front war. If they had found some way to do one at a time, such as doing the Soviets before France, Belgium, Holland etc, then they mighta had a shot.

I guess the politics of Poland made it difficult what with the guarantees of France and the UK - but part of me thinks a war focused on the Soviets may have had some moral support from the West, who were very keen to see the outcome of the revolution reversed.

I have wondered about this. I think it is very likely that if the Nazis had focused on the Soviets they might have had a free hand. The tricky part is Poland as you point out but I wonder if the UK's and France's support for Poland would have waned or simply been more moral than substantial.

Despite the extreme heinous nature of the Nazi atrocities, if you completely eliminate a local population, you don't have to deal with uprisings. They were clearly capable of doing this to gain control and suppress a local population.

 

[Praktik]

Despite the extreme heinous nature of the Nazi atrocities, if you completely eliminate a local population, you don't have to deal with uprisings. They were clearly capable of doing this to gain control and suppress a local population.

Well in their haste eastwards I'm not sure they had the capability. Partisan activity in Nazi Occupied territory was pretty severe at times. Orders from Hitler show their prominence in his mind - the organization of the NKVD and its role in fomenting partisan uprising shows the other side. They clearly did raze some villages completely to the ground and did their share of mass killings, but I wonder if they had the capability to truly *eliminate* the local populations given that so much manpower was needed to extend the frontline eastwards.

Clearly, over time the ability of them to do so would become more likely. If they had taken over moscow and managed to hold on to their gains for a decade or so I'm sure we would have seen a systematic extermination of the entire region, jew, partisan or neither.... As someone else pointed out above, their attitudes towards the populations of east europe was self-defeating. They were only recently incorporated into the Soviet empire anyhow.

 

[Eddie Dane]

We've done this subject quite recently:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154685&highlight=nazi

Not that I mind, new angles would be nice.

 

[Marduk]

The geographic location of the US is what makes me think that Germany would have lost the war even if Barbarossa had succeeded. We're isolated, except to the north and south, where we have, if not allies, then at least not-enemies. And it would be difficult for the Germans to have gotten enough manpower across the ocean to get a foothold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_7r533moXo

 

[Eddie Dane]

Personally I think that it was not possible to eradicate the Russians.

Even severely weakened, they would still have been able to fight a partisan war.
And if we look at the history of assymetrical warfare in the 20th century, that would have been bad news for the Germans.
In the long run Germany could not field that many people. You can't have the entire male population of your country fighting a guerrilla war indefinitely.

 

[AvalonXQ]

What about if the U.S. had allied with Germany rather than against it? The U.S. and Germany against the rest of Europe and Asia.

 

[seayakin]

Well in their haste eastwards I'm not sure they had the capability. Partisan activity in Nazi Occupied territory was pretty severe at times. Orders from Hitler show their prominence in his mind - the organization of the NKVD and its role in fomenting partisan uprising shows the other side. They clearly did raze some villages completely to the ground and did their share of mass killings, but I wonder if they had the capability to truly *eliminate* the local populations given that so much manpower was needed to extend the frontline eastwards.

Clearly, over time the ability of them to do so would become more likely. If they had taken over moscow and managed to hold on to their gains for a decade or so I'm sure we would have seen a systematic extermination of the entire region, jew, partisan or neither.... As someone else pointed out above, their attitudes towards the populations of east europe was self-defeating. They were only recently incorporated into the Soviet empire anyhow.

I agree with your assessment. It raises another question, if they would have taken a go slow approach gobbling up one country at a time and securing it before moving on. Would that be sustainable? My inclination is no because even if the west took no action, it is unlikely Stalin would have done nothing as Germany completely secured Poland (by eliminating or enslavign the local population) before moving on. Of course, Germany also would have required a more stable leader than Hitler to pull this off also.

I also wonder even if the west was reluctant to engage Germany militarily unless directly provoked, if this reluctance would have really held if the Nazis started eliminating the populations of major cities.

 

[Praktik]

Personally I think that it was not possible to eradicate the Russians.

Even severely weakened, they would still have been able to fight a partisan war.
And if we look at the history of assymetrical warfare in the 20th century, that would have been bad news for the Germans.
In the long run Germany could not field that many people. You can't have the entire male population of your country fighting a guerrilla war indefinitely.

Yep - and Soviet space went so far to the east that they would have had a base from which to regroup since its pretty implausible the Germans would be fielding Panzer divisions as far afield as Kamchatka...