Could the Nazi Germans have "Won" the war?

[Nyvin]

If America hadn't gotten involved, Germany would have easily won. Germany could also very easily have chosen not to take on the UK and just be content with their European empire, and if they wanted to, add Russia to it.

Yeah, the decision Japan made to attack Pearl Harbor and thus wage war against the US had catastrophic events on Germany's aims. There really is no doubt that if the US hadn't been involved directly Europe would be much different then it is today.

What Germany was planning on was having Japan attack Russia in the east and Germany in the west, basically sandwiching them. Instead Japan saw the US as the greater threat, and struck out at them. For the situation Japan was in I could understand it, but in the end it turned out to be the wrong choice.

So in the end, yes, there is no doubt that it's very possible that Germany could've easily won ww2 if the right choices were made, from Germany and others.

 

[Adler17]

At first I never said Germany was totally innocent. Obviously it wasn´t. But indeed Hitler was the man who was responsible for everything. Also I admit the army was not fully united in the Hitler question, but at least in 1944 they were united in the way, if Hitler was dead they would support the coup. Then if Hitler died, the coup would have been successfully taking the NSDAP down. Even before Hitler was the one on whom the officers swore. Nevertheless they were not keen with Hitler and they hated the others generally (exceptions are for example Keitel and Jodl, but these guys were not very liked in the army). They would never have accepted a Bormann or Himmler. Indeed for the case of Hitler´s death they had the plan of Operation Walküre to take the power and to unarm the SS
So Hitler was the key. Without him the NSDAP was de facto dead and parted in fractions with many wannabe leaders. But then?
We should see the opposition of the German parties, which still existed. The Weimar parties were forming a kind of Great opposition coalition. From the SPD to the national conservative DNVP the parties were united against Hitler. Of course they could only agree in a minimum way, that means only the things were planned which were common sense:
1. Stopping the Holocaust.
2. Making peace with the western allies (not at first with the Russians as they were seen as thread to Germany by all parties, but a peace would be negotiated fastly also on the eastern front)
3. Making preparations for new free elections
4. Reinstalling and enhencing the Weimar constitution to avoid a second Hitler

This was supported by the Wehrmacht (at least to the acception to support them in the case of Hitler´s death).
So a democratic Germany was then far more realistic than a Germany under another nazi. Nevertheless I admit this is only speculation. But I never said it was anything else. However the propability that it happened in that way is very high.

Adler

 

[~Corsair#01~]

So basically, Nazi Germany could have won the war, on the conditions that Germany was not governed by Nazis and that most of the war didn't take place.

 

[Pyotr Veliky]

Without the US Germany would have easily won? Are we forgetting here that Lend Lease only became somewhat of a factor AFTER Stalingrad? Did Lend Lease speed up the Red Army? Yes. Did it make it possible for the Soviets to take Berlin in April '45 instead of later? Yes. But don't forget that before Lend Lease kicked in, the Germans got TWO chances of winning the war in the East and failed both times. And if we're going to play the "if the Germans had done everything differently" game, may I then suggest the "don't let Stalin make a zillion mistakes" game? I find it funny that Soviet actions are always set in stone, only Germany is allowed to change its behaviour in these "what ifs".

 

[Nyvin]

Without the US Germany would have easily won? Are we forgetting here that Lend Lease only became somewhat of a factor AFTER Stalingrad? Did Lend Lease speed up the Red Army? Yes. Did it make it possible for the Soviets to take Berlin in April '45 instead of later? Yes. But don't forget that before Lend Lease kicked in, the Germans got TWO chances of winning the war in the East and failed both times. And if we're going to play the "if the Germans had done everything differently" game, may I then suggest the "don't let Stalin make a zillion mistakes" game? I find it funny that Soviet actions are always set in stone, only Germany is allowed to change its behaviour in these "what ifs".

That's because Russia's actions were heavily dependant on the actions of it's allies. Germany didn't have any constraints like theirs. They were basically free to do whatever they wanted without consulting allies (for the most part).

 

[thisispete]

People talk of tactics and strategy when they should really be thinking of logistics. Why did Germany invade Russia? To get to the oilfields in the Caucasus - that's why Stalingrad was so pivotal in the war. Why were they in North Africa? Again, to get the oilfields in the Middle East and to gain control of the Suez canal - which would give them access to the tropics and rubber supplies. So long as they were denied those objectives, they were destined to lose the war.

 

[Pyotr Veliky]

That's because Russia's actions were heavily dependant on the actions of it's allies. Germany didn't have any constraints like theirs. They were basically free to do whatever they wanted without consulting allies (for the most part).

When were Russia's action dependent on its allies????

 

[DAv2003]

When they needed the second front to be opened?

 

[Ancient Grudge]

What Germany was planning on was having Japan attack Russia in the east and Germany in the west, basically sandwiching them. Instead Japan saw the US as the greater threat, and struck out at them. For the situation Japan was in I could understand it, but in the end it turned out to be the wrong choice.

I'm sorry but no.

1) US had imposed a trade embargo upon Japan that would of starved them of oil.
2) The natural resources that are now known to be abudant in Siberia weren't discovered back then
3) The need to set up a defensive ring in the Pacific for the Home Islands

The reason was not because the US was a greater threat it was because they viewed Russia as a bigger threat and also because of natural resources.

 

[fing0lfin]

I think that Germany could have won the war, if Hitler has keeped to the Ribentrop-Molotov treaty.A treaty which granted that Germany won't attack Russia and Russia won't attack Germany.
And about the Allies...What did the allies do when Hitler occupied France ? Nothing.Did they attaked Germany, or tried to libarate France ?
Acctually the reson for the many civil people dead, during the bombardments over England was Churchil. Germany and England had a treaty for not bombing any civil objects, but Churchil broke it.
The war was not won by the allies. It was won by Russia.
I don't won't to ignore the looses of the allies and the other countries.Everybody lost something in this terrible war.
But talking that America and the allies won the war is an insult to the 20 milion Russian soldiers died in the battlefields.

 

[DAv2003]

Acctually the reson for the many civil people dead, during the bombardments over England was Churchil. Germany and England had a treaty for not bombing any civil objects, but Churchil broke it.

Does the Blitz mean anything to you? You know, when a large portion of British cities were bombed to buggery by the German Airforce.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Could Nazi Germany have 'won' the war?

Yes, I think they could of, if alot of things had gone differently. People always assume that they were doomed because America won, but there is a whole host of alternatives that could have happened! Of course,

How?

I think these things would have 'helped' the Germans alot...

-Battle of Britain - the British airforce was 'close to defeat' when Germany switched tatics to bomb civilians. Germany should have kept up attacks on Royal Airforce bases. Operation Sealion should have been launched. Taking Britain out would have meant that the US would have had no base to launch invasion of Europe from. However, even if not actually being able to launch an invasion of Britain, air superiority would still have been important, imagine the US trying to move troops into Britain under German bombardemnt from above!

It has been argued that sealion would not have worked, but air superiority certainally would have helped the Germans alot....for a start it would have delayed if not prevented the heavy Britihs/American bombing of German war production.

- OPERATION FELIX - Germany should have got Spain onside and invaded Gibraltar. Sure, Franco's demandeds were big, but I think Spain on the side of the Axis would have played a big part in North Africa, as a Spain on Germany's side would have proved a big obstacle for American invasion.

-Soviet Union - Germany should have gone straight for Moscow, and focused on taking it. German troops should have been better equipped for winter. Germany should have captured Leningrad - if that battle had gone differently that would have helped them alot. Bascially, the soviets were very strong and Germany would only have achieved victory by 'getting lucky' in several areas.

Regarding talk of 'Germany should have attacked Russia' and alike - I think conflict between them was pretty ineviatable.

-Japan. I reckon Japan should have basically ignored the US, and gone about capturing the Pacific anyways. I don't think the US would have gone to war straight away, and that could have bought the Japanese time to 'dig in' a bit more on their captured islands. A slower entry of US into pacific war of course means a slower entry into European war, which would have of course benifited Germany.



Anyways, those are just a few random musings of mine, i'm sure that I have overlooked many things and I hold none of them as certain!

 

[Adler17]

Nothing in times of war is certain. You can win or lose a war in the same moment, despite your position.

Adler

 

[thisispete]

There was no treaty per se, just an understanding that the enemy would retalliate in kind. That's why poison gas wasn't used. However, here's a letter from Churchill in 1940 detailing his response to the German escalation.

Prime Minister to General Ismay, for C.O.S. Committee
19.IX.40
(Admiral Phillips to see)

1. It was not solely on moral grounds that we decided against retaliation upon Germany. It pays us better to concentrate upon limited high-class military objectives. Moreover, in the indiscriminate warfare the enemy's lack of skill in navigation, etc., does not tell against him so much.

2. However, the dropping of large mines by parachute proclaims the enemy's entire abandonment of all pretence of aiming at military objectives. At five thousand feet he cannot have the slightest idea what he is going to hit. This therefore proves the "act of terror" intention against the civil population. We must consider whether his morale would stand up to this as well as ours. Here is a simple war thought.

3. My inclination is to say that we will drop a heavy parachute mine on German cities for every one he drops on ours; and it might be an intriguing idea to mention a list of cities that would be black-listed for this purpose. I do not think they would like it, and there is no reason why they should not have a period of suspense.

4. The time and character of the announcement is a political decision. Meanwhile I wish to know when the tackle could be ready. Let care be taken to make a forthcoming response to this. Let officers be set to propose the best method on a substantial scale in the shortest time. It would be better to act by parachute mines upon a number of German towns not hitherto touched, but if we have to use 1,000-lb air-bombs which we have because otherwise the delay would be too long, let the case be stated.

5. I wish to know by Saturday night what is the worst form of proportionste retaliation, i.e., equal retaliation, that we can inflict upon ordinary German cities for what they are now doing to us by means of the parachute mine. To-day we were informed that thirty-six had been dropped, but by to-morrow it may be one hundred. Well, let it be a hundred, and make the best plan possible on that scale for action within, say, a week or ten days. If we have to wait longer so be it, but make sure there is no obstruction.

6. Pending the above information I agree that we should not make a wail or a whine about what has happened. Let me have practical propositions by Saturday night.

-Winston Churchill, The Second World War, vol ii: Their Finest Hour, 1949, pp.297-298

 

[AdrianE]

When you are playing the what if game with Nazi Germany doing better than historically, keep the atomic bomb in mind.

The end result of any what if that has the Nazis doing better ends up with an atomic bomb dropping on a German not Japanese city and likely one in the Ruhr.

 

[Reno]

The end result of any what if that has the Nazis doing better ends up with an atomic bomb dropping on a German not Japanese city and likely one in the Ruhr.

If Britain is knocked out of the War before 1942 then the Germans would have gained the Atomic Bomb before the Allies. Since it was British commandoes that destroyed the German heavy water plant in Norway back in 42.

 

[fing0lfin]

I think it was Norway sabotaging group.
And about Churchil. He as an war criminal ordereed bombarding cities with purpose of destroying all citezens in this cities. And the allies used bomb, which looked like children toys !

 

[DAv2003]

Churchill bombed the cities with the greatest reluctance and unlike the nazis, didn't relish the fact of the amount of death and destruction it would cause. Churchill even later expressed regret over the bombings.

 

[Nyvin]

Churchill bombed the cities with the greatest reluctance and unlike the nazis, didn't relish the fact of the amount of death and destruction it would cause. Churchill even later expressed regret over the bombings.

That's just a patriotic saying, lots of the nazis resented the killing, and Hitler himself gave a speech about how hard it is to continue with what they were doing sometimes. He never 'relish' the death and destruction. Churchill and Hitler are pretty much the same in that regard.

 

[DAv2003]

He never 'relish' the death and destruction.

And yet it carried on for what, 3 years? Even when it became apparent that Britain would refuse to surrender, he carried on and killed thousands of people.