The plausibility of a Nazi Victory

[ddt]

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.

Thanks. I had guessed about Sealion, but I didn't know about it being unmentionable on alternativehistory.com

 

[Marduk]

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.

I don't think thats a very good idea considering their friendly fire rates

 

[ddt]

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.

Understatement much? Wiki on Khatyn, one of those villages:

At least 5,295 Belarusian settlements were destroyed by the Nazis and some or all their inhabitants killed. In the Vitebsk region 243 villages were burned down twice, 83 villages three times, and 22 villages were burned down four or more times. In the Minsk region 92 villages were burned down twice, 40 villages three times, nine villages four times, and six villages five or more times.[2] Altogether, 2,230,000 people were killed in Belarus during the three years of German occupation, about a quarter of the country's population.[3][4]

They were only recently incorporated into the Soviet empire anyhow.

Recently being since the three Polish partitions (1775-1795), so that's about a century and a half.

 

[Praktik]

Understatement much? Wiki on Khatyn, one of those villages:



Recently being since the three Polish partitions (1775-1795), so that's about a century and a half.

Belarus, the baltic states, Ukraine...

my main point was the country wasn't completely emptied out by any means, many millions remained and enough troublemakers were behind the front lines of the Germans to cause serious problems with logistics. Clearly, the figures for Belarus are appalling, as are most of the figures for the eastern front really - but even those obscene numbers left 3/4 of the population behind in the belarussan case.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Thanks. I had guessed about Sealion, but I didn't know about it being unmentionable on alternativehistory.com

It's called Alternatehistory.com

Linky: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/index.php

Sealion became part of our culture ever since it was created.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I do not think the Axis powers stood a chance for the following reasons.

1) Low production.
Speer did not introduce a war economy until 1942 in Germany. By 1944 he had exhausted both citizens and imported workers labour pools and was already trading off "soldiers" vs "arms output". There is no reason to believe that this labour pool could have been increased if Moscow fell.

Germany produced 5,500 Panther tanks ( Their best)
Russia produced 48,000 T-34s ( almost equal to the Panther)
(This gives you an idea of the difference in production)

2) Political Turmoil / Internal / External
I think it is an illusion to think the NSDAP was stable. Hitler's mind was going in 1945 and there was no system for a replacement. All uber-Nazis went their "own way" when the times got tough. I think the NSDAP would have fallen apart anyhow if the war continued

Externally, members of the army were already trying to kill Hitler.

3) Improved military skills / The Allies
The Russians showed in 1944 that they were the experts in mobile warfare while the Germans were not allowed to "take a step back". The Russian learnt their lessons well. German military skills were going backwards due to the NSDAP's interference.

The Americans got a bloody nose at Kasserine Pass but improved their skills and introduced new winning tactics by 1944.

4) General loss of World resources
I think by 1945 europe was coming to the end of its labour and resource pools for both sides. As Germany had no plans to conquer places like India, which were somewhat uneffected by war, there is little reason to believe the war could have continued burning up resources anyway. Even if Britain was captured it would be another burden on Germany as Britain was importing food & resources during the war.

5) Humans
I like humans. If you keep kicking a human for long enough they will get up and punch you in the nose. I imagine humans would have gotten rid of the Nazis anyhow even if the Nazis won.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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 don't think they had that much of a choice, actually.

They were in a de jure war with France and Britain since the attack on Poland. And the only thing that did stop both of those from coming from the west and wiping the floor with Germany while it was busy in Poland, was the USSR's entering the war on the side of Germany. Neither of them wanted to risk entering a war against the Soviet bear too.

The instant Germany actually went to war with the USSR, removing that threat, it would have its two front war right there and then.

Even assuming ad absurdum that France wouldn't have attacked, the UK would have. They were pressuring France to start a proper attack as it was. And France was an immense foothold in Europe in that scenario.

Basically securing their western border _before_ going after Russia was IMHO actually pretty good thinking.

Additionally, France had already begun extending its Maginot line to cover the Belgian border too. And the Nazis seem to have actually feared that line. Much as nowadays it's derided, there was no direct attack against it. The German army simply bypassed it. But the window of opportunity to bypass it was closing. If you threw in a year or two of wrestling with Russia, the whole attack plan against it might have become obsolete.

Additionally, I don't think that Germany had the resources, industry or manpower to go after Russia yet.

E.g., in 1940, Germany had 189 divisions available, France had 105, the USSR had 200. You tell me which looks like a more manageable target, especially for a country still ironing out its tactics and all.

But let's look at the GDP in 1939, in millions of 1990 dollars:

USA: 862,995 (still in depression, would soon double!)
USSR: 430,314
Germany: 374,577
UK: 300,539
France: 200,840

But even those figures paint a slightly wrong picture, because (A) the USSR actually had more industrial capacity than you'd assume from those numbers, but it was cheaper stuff since it wasn't as high-tech, and (B) the USSR had disproportionately invested in the army all along, while Germany was still rearming from a pretty bad situation.

The assumption is usually the other way around, but the cruel reality is that Germany simply was no match for the USSR economy or army yet. Even later it took the destabilization of the Great Purge for Germany to really have a fighting chance there.

France, on the other hand, was the other way around: it was actually in an even worse shape than those numbers paint. A lot of its GDP there is raw materials from its colonies, while the industry was actually in a pretty bad shape in the wake of the Great Depression.

Picking off the weaker France first was pretty much a no-brainer.

But there's an even more perverse factor there. Under the treaty terms, the USSR was actually supplying resources to Germany until the day it got itself attacked, including food, rare metals and other stuff that nobody else traded with Germany. While Germany was busy mopping the floor with France, or building up before and after that, the USSR was supplying its industry.

That's something rather asymmetrical there. Germany couldn't flip that around. France wouldn't have traded it stuff while it's attacking the USSR first.

 

[CHF]

A Nazi victory was certainly possible but it would have involved treating the Slavs as human beings.

So no dice.

 

[jhunter1163]

In addition to all the other factors mentioned above, the US would still have gotten the Bomb by 1945. I can't see how Germany could have continued the war against an atomic-armed foe.

 

[ddt]

Belarus, the baltic states, Ukraine...

my main point was the country wasn't completely emptied out by any means, many millions remained and enough troublemakers were behind the front lines of the Germans to cause serious problems with logistics. Clearly, the figures for Belarus are appalling, as are most of the figures for the eastern front really - but even those obscene numbers left 3/4 of the population behind in the belarussan case.

I agree with you there - by far no complete extermination. I mainly objected to your statement that the Nazis "did raze some villages completely to the ground". Those "some" being several thousands.

 

[paximperium]

Let's assume that the German's had temporarily successfully subdued the Eastern Front and gained the oil resources it needed and was then able to throw more resources against the Allied Forces in Italy and the Normandy landings.

Would this have made enough of a difference?

 

[Jungle Jim]

Let's assume that the German's had temporarily successfully subdued the Eastern Front and gained the oil resources it needed and was then able to throw more resources against the Allied Forces in Italy and the Normandy landings.

Would this have made enough of a difference?

It certainly would have forestalled the end for a couple of years. However, U.S. manpower and military production capacity would have been overwhelming. Not to mention A-bombs would have been dropping on German cities.

 

[Ladewig]

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.

If you asked me if I'd rather roll around northern France in a Sherman or a Tiger, I'd take the German tank unhesitatingly, but I understand your point.

 

[drkitten]

In addition to all the other factors mentioned above, the US would still have gotten the Bomb by 1945. I can't see how Germany could have continued the war against an atomic-armed foe.

Are we assuming that Britain is still in the war?

If not, how do we get the bomb to Berlin? The same transport issues that make it hard for Germany to invade the States make it hard for the States to invade or attack Europe.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

It certainly would have forestalled the end for a couple of years. However, U.S. manpower and military production capacity would have been overwhelming. Not to mention A-bombs would have been dropping on German cities.

I agree with this, and want to add that had the Germans gotten the resources in the East and subdued the local populations (a tough task), I don't see Stalin and the USSR sitting pat and giving up; I see them fighting back. So while the Third Reich would've gotten it's resources, it would've also managed to entangle it's manpower and military forces in the east just as deeply as they were really entangled in actual past history; they just would've been deployed in different ways. The only way I think conquering the east would've made any difference is if Germany also somehow managed to disengage militarily and use those eastern-dedicated forces to strengthen the western front against the Allied invasion. At that point, there may (heavy emphasis on "may") have been an opening to demoralize the US by repelling the Normandy invasion and working towards a negotiated end to fighting.

Now, I only cite that possibility as a devil's advocate; I actually doubt it would have worked out that way. I would argue that the US would not have given up, and instead would've tried to go the Italy route if D-Day had failed. Furthermore, if Germany had successfully subdued the populations in the Caucasus, Ukraine, and other points east, I really think that would've strengthened, not weakened, US resolve; it would've only added to America's conviction that Hitler was out of control and needed to be stopped.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

If you asked me if I'd rather roll around northern France in a Sherman or a Tiger, I'd take the German tank unhesitatingly, but I understand your point.

The German tanks were indeed superior, but recall that much of the German army was not mechanized, and still relied on horses or bicycles. That's what I meant by "better equipped": While the Germans had some superior pieces of equipment (the Tiger tank was one; the MG-42 was another), the US had trucks, trucks, and more trucks, and could supply their forces much better.

I probably should've used the term "better supplied" than "equipped". I just didn't think of that when I posted.

Anyway, speaking selfishly: Yes, I'd rather have the Tiger myself. But between an armored force with superior tanks accompanied by poorly mobile infantry and combat support forces, and one with an unequivocably lesser tank but more of them which was much better supported by terrifically mobile infantry and other logistics forces, well... history has shown which one worked out better.

Now, the best situation would have been German quality with American numbers and logistics. But that's really treading into the realm of fantasy.

 

[stilicho]

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.

With a British ceasefire and an acceptance of what we now take for granted there is little doubt that a Nazi victory was plausible.

Germany has taken its place as a premier nation, something it did not have from its coalescence in 1870 until after the Second World War. Without the vigorous opposition embodied in Churchill, the rest of Europe would have gone the way of Spain. There was no guarantee of American assistance for the British world-view and it wouldn't have continued for long if Hitler had clarified his anti-Bolshevik policy.

People tend to look at historical events as though they were inevitable but that's unsupportable. Contemporary historians, generals, and journalists did not think that the Nazis were destined to lose. And the Nazi vision of smaller and more ethnically cohesive states in Eastern Europe only achieved success after the implosion of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

The Nazis might have lost the war but the German vision of modern Europe won over that of the British, the Russians, or the Americans.

 

[Praktik]

I agree with you there - by far no complete extermination. I mainly objected to your statement that the Nazis "did raze some villages completely to the ground". Those "some" being several thousands.

Fair enough! I can see how that came across wrong I guess I was writing too quickly. ..

 

[Praktik]

I don't think they had that much of a choice, actually.
<snip>
That's something rather asymmetrical there. Germany couldn't flip that around. France wouldn't have traded it stuff while it's attacking the USSR first.

OK I think you've convinced me. Impressive post!

I think this has me convinced there really wasn't a way for them to win - at least with the grandiose aims they had.

 

[Uzzy]

Hmm. If Britain was knocked out of the war early, be it diplomatically or militarily (of which the diplomatic option seems the more likely, given how Lord Halifax came very close to becoming the British PM, and it's plausible he may have brokered some sort of deal with the Nazis), would the US still have supported the USSR through Lend Lease?

Further, assuming Pearl Harbour still brings America into the war, would the Nazis and the US still have gone to war with each other? Could they have practically done it, even if they wanted to?

None of this matters though if the Nazis couldn't defeat the Soviets. But had Italy not messed things up in Greece, it's entirely possible the Nazis could have started Operation Barbarossa earlier, perhaps in April 1941, thus giving them more time to capture Moscow. Add in the likes of Rommel to the mix, and it's plausible that the Nazis could have reached the Urals. They didn't see the land beyond the Urals as worth conquering.

In summary, I see three things that would have to happen if the Nazis could possible win (winning being in this case a defeat of the Soviet Union)

1. Remove Britain from the war.
2. Ensure America doesn't oppose them.
3. Concentrate fully on the Soviets.

Does this chain of events seem far fetched? Or are their other obstacles, such as German low production that would stop them, even just fighting the Soviets?