How Nazi Germany could have won WWII

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

If the Germans had honored their peace treaty with Russia, they probably could have gotten most of Eastern Europe without the anybody standing in their way. Then they might have been able to pick up the northern coast of Africa. Spain would have fallen and then they could squeeze France into submission. The UK would have become a client state. Then they could have nuked the hell out of Russia and taken the western republics. After that, colonization of Africa and Southeast Asia would be expected. And then, on the last day of the decade of the 1970's ... the moon!

Then they could have carved up Turkey and mopped up Greece.

[Mikeys]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

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.

How do you imagine staying after the RAF. Bombing of Britain was the only way to stop British air raids. it worked very well. Quiet skies over Germany, nothing more was needed or wanted from Goering.

Quote:

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.

Two divisions, peanuts.

Quote:

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.

Japan drew America into the pacific, what better deal in 1941 could Hitler get? i believe Hitler knew about Pearl Harbor. Japanese political goals were obvious. Promises must have been made beforehand on both sides, and from German perspective they were worth to keep.

Quote:

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 On the western front they should have withdrawn to the Siegfried line much faster, rather than allow about a dozen divisions to be destroyed in the Falaise pocket.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.

Not all Germans were insane enough to act strategically at this point and those who were couldn't, not that it could do anything.

[Mikeys]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Sorry, but the Northern Resources Area was a serious contender for the Japanese for a simple reason, they were already there. No need to attack Britain or the US, no need for long overseas supply lines, etc. Only in July of 1941 did they decide to move South instead of North.

The invasion of China started in 1937, the actual start of the 2 world war. I don't think Siberia was known for resources at the time, not much discovered yet. Oil fields were far away across Asia. Japanese combat armour was designed for the Pacific. Post colonial Japanese new order in south east Asia was what the Japanese were after.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Mikeys

How do you imagine staying after the RAF. Bombing of Britain was the only way to stop British air raids. it worked very well. Quiet skies over Germany, nothing more was needed or wanted from Goering.

I mean to keep up their strategy of destroying the RAF on the ground. It may have worked (again with better Luftwaffe leadership.) The Blitz did nothing at all to prevent the UK's night bombing campaign of Germany which started in 1940.

Quote:

Two divisions, peanuts.

You're only counting the original 2 divisions of the Afrika Corps. German forces in Africa were greatly expanded. I don't have exact numbers, but it was certainly Army strength. Plus they had to leave troops behind to garrison Yugoslavia and Greece. And there were Luftwaffe forces diverted to the Med. But maybe most importantly of all Germany had to delay Barbarossa to bail Italy out in Greece. Had Germany launched Barbarossa 2 months earlier, and with Rommel commanding an extra armored corps, they just might have captured Moscow.

Oh and they had to defend Italy later in the war.

Quote:

Japan drew America into the pacific, what better deal in 1941 could Hitler get? i believe Hitler knew about Pearl Harbor. Japanese political goals were obvious. Promises must have been made beforehand on both sides, and from German perspective they were worth to keep.

What exactly did Germany stand to gain from declaring war on the US? No longer worrying about sinking neutral shipping is about it. Not even close to worth it.

Japan's goals were to capture the resources of the east indies to support their war in China. I've never heard that Hitler had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor.

Quote:

Not all Germans were insane enough to act strategically at this point and those who were couldn't, not that it could do anything.

Actually OKW wanted to withdraw after the Normandy breakout instead of counter attacking, and was very much against the Ardennes offensive (the Battle of the Bulge). Hitler, insisted on them.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

I mean to keep up their strategy of destroying the RAF on the ground. It may have worked (again with better Luftwaffe leadership.) The Blitz did nothing at all to prevent the UK's night bombing campaign of Germany which started in 1940..

They also could have gone after the radar stations a little harder. They did bomb a couple and didn't really see anything different, so they were never sure exactly how valuable the installations where

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Then they could have carved up Turkey and mopped up Greece.

Then ransack Pakistan and run a scam in Scandinavia.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I Hitler had declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, it would have made the Nazis technically allies of the USA.

Not that Roosevelt would ever have done anything active to help Hitler, but it might have kept US troops out of the European theater.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Hubert Cumberdale

Making nothing but a string of colossal strategic and logistic errors is indeed to not really 'getting' strategy or logistics.

After the battle of France there is not a single German campaign that was not ruinously affected by crass strategic mismanagement and misadventure and disastrous logistics.

There were only two battles which were seriously affected by "disastrous logistics", Moscow and Stalingrad. They're not even campaigns.

The Wehrmacht sustained itself in the field until 1944 when every single part of it fell apart. It was more than capable of shifting an ever increasing tonnage of ammunition to be dropped onto the heads of its enemies.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK

I think it's lucky Germany wasn't particularly nice to its physicists (especially the Jewish ones).

That's an important factor, Sceptic-PK. Your point is central to how das Uranverein fell way behind the Manhattan Project. I recently published my thesis on how this happened, despite the fact that Germany had been a major leader in physics since the nineteenth century, and Randi is cited in the thesis (because of nationalistic thinking that divided scientists based on a few pages he gave me on his upcoming book about how Blondlot allowed this to get in the way of real science).

Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, both Nobel prize winners in physics, argued that scientists in Germany should be doing "German physics" instead of "Jewish physics". These phrases make no sense. Electrons are electrons. However, it led to the purge of Jewish scientists in Germany in 1933, and Schrödinger was among physicists in Germany who were not Jewish but resigned in protest. This badly hurt the Nazis' capacity to draw from talent, and many of those scientists worked for the Allies.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

There were only two battles which were seriously affected by "disastrous logistics", Moscow and Stalingrad. They're not even campaigns.

The Wehrmacht sustained itself in the field until 1944 when every single part of it fell apart. It was more than capable of shifting an ever increasing tonnage of ammunition to be dropped onto the heads of its enemies.

The Afrika Corp had logistical challenges for most of its North African campaign

[Mikeys]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

I mean to keep up their strategy of destroying the RAF on the ground. It may have worked (again with better Luftwaffe leadership.) The Blitz did nothing at all to prevent the UK's night bombing campaign of Germany which started in 1940.

Hitler said straight up, when the British want to bomb a German city Luftwaffe will turn London to dust. He had means and the reach and resolution to do that. British air raids stopped quicker than they started, they never really properly begun.

Quote:

You're only counting the original 2 divisions of the Afrika Corps. German forces in Africa were greatly expanded. I don't have exact numbers, but it was certainly Army strength. Plus they had to leave troops behind to garrison Yugoslavia and Greece. And there were Luftwaffe forces diverted to the Med. But maybe most importantly of all Germany had to delay Barbarossa to bail Italy out in Greece. Had Germany launched Barbarossa 2 months earlier, and Rommel commanding an extra armored corps, they just might have captured Moscow.

They could not have launched earlier because earlier was the spring, the land in Belarus through which the armies would have to go was wet. The tanks would have sunk in swamps. They had to wait for summer.

Quote:

What exactly did Germany stand to gain from declaring war on the US? No longer worrying about sinking neutral shipping is about it. Not even close to worth it.

German subs were doing most of the sinking. Germans didn't use waters to ship much of their stuff. With or without declaration of war lend-lease both to the UK and Russia was on the way. The US came to Europe with force in 1944 and the reason was they were halted by Japan, not because of the declaration, just words.

[RobDegraves]

This has been a pretty annoying thread with some remarkably ignorant opinions. However, it is an interesting subject with some very good posts, particularly Ian's.

@Ian

It's nice to meet another scholar. It sounds like your thesis was historical in nature but I could be wrong. I would be interested in reading it.

On the subject...

Quote:

Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, both Nobel prize winners in physics, argued that scientists in Germany should be doing "German physics" instead of "Jewish physics". These phrases make no sense. Electrons are electrons. However, it led to the purge of Jewish scientists in Germany in 1933, and Schrödinger was among physicists in Germany who were not Jewish but resigned in protest. This badly hurt the Nazis' capacity to draw from talent, and many of those scientists worked for the Allies.

This was likely a major factor in the war. Without those scientists, Germany's pursuit of atomic power became problematical at best. Imagine the Nazi's with atomic weapons and you can well see how they could have won the war.

On a separate note, it's also interesting to note how simplistic people's view of the world war is. From the point of view of strategy and tactics even, Germany can hardly be seen as a unit. The German General Staff institution turned out brilliant tactics and several German generals were brilliant. This is contrasted by the Nazi party's predilection for promoting on the basis of politics and favoritism, and by Hitler's constant meddling in strategic affairs. Hitler had a great grasp of politics, as well as a pragmatic, even cynical view that worked out great at first. His lack of understanding of tactics though really impaired the war effort after it's initial successes. (BTW... a brief overview is likely to be missing a lot of detail.. obviously)

Overall, I don't think Germany could have ever taken on the world in a standard military conflict. The numbers would have been far too overwhelming. However, having nuclear weapons would have changed that greatly.

Thankfully, their racist policies insured that they never would.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Mikeys

Hitler said straight up, when the British want to bomb a German city Luftwaffe will turn London to dust. He had means and the reach and resolution to do that. British air raids stopped quicker than they started, they never really properly begun.

I'm not sure what you mean by "British air raids stopped quicker than they started". The British night bombing campaign continued for the entire war.

Quote:

They could not have launched earlier because earlier was the spring, the land in Belarus through which the armies would have to go was wet. The tanks would have sunk in swamps. They had to wait for summer.

I've read that before elsewhere, that the spring muds would have made travel impossible. But, I don't completely buy it. They ran into mud during the summer and fall at times as well, and in later campaigns in the spring. Some of Belarus is impassible wet land, but not all of it. Also, Barbarossa was originally planned to start on May 15.

Quote:

German subs were doing most of the sinking. Germans didn't use waters to ship much of their stuff. With or without declaration of war lend-lease both to the UK and Russia was on the way. The US came to Europe with force in 1944 and the reason was they were halted by Japan, not because of the declaration, just words.

I think you misunderstood my previous reply. By declaring war on the US, Germany no longer needed to worry about sinking neutral (ie United States) shipping supplying the UK and USSR. They could just sink anything in the N Atlantic with impunity. I don't see any other reason for declaring war on the US, other than Hitler's megalomania.

I don't know what you mean by "The US came to Europe with force in 1944 and the reason was they were halted by Japan".

[Mikeys]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

I'm not sure what you mean by "British air raids stopped quicker than they started". The British night bombing campaign continued for the entire war.

Read up a bit on the stuff. Air raids proper on Germany begun when Wehrmacht was bogged down in Russia and the game was tilted. After the battle of Britain in 1940 the sky was clear, some ass-pulls perhaps, nothing worth of mention.

Quote:

I've read that before elsewhere, that the spring muds would have made travel impossible. But, I don't completely buy it. They ran into mud during the summer and fall at times as well, and in later campaigns in the spring. Some of Belarus is impassible wet land, but not all of it. Also, Barbarossa was originally planned to start on May 15.

well, that's what Guderian says. They wanted to be in Moscow in 3 months. The speed and surprise was the key. They wouldn't push through the mud if they could choose otherwise. Kiev was their undoing, not the start day.

Quote:

I think you misunderstood my previous reply. By declaring war on the US, Germany no longer needed to worry about sinking neutral (ie United States) shipping supplying the UK and USSR. They could just sink anything in the N Atlantic with impunity. I don't see any other reason for declaring war on the US, other than Hitler's megalomania.

?

[Mikeys]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

I'm not sure what you mean by "British air raids stopped quicker than they started". The British night bombing campaign continued for the entire war.

Read up a bit on the stuff. Air raids proper on Germany begun when Wehrmacht was bogged down in Russia and the game was tilted. After the battle of Britain in 1940 the sky was clear, some ass-pulls perhaps, nothing worth of mention.

Quote:

I've read that before elsewhere, that the spring muds would have made travel impossible. But, I don't completely buy it. They ran into mud during the summer and fall at times as well, and in later campaigns in the spring. Some of Belarus is impassible wet land, but not all of it. Also, Barbarossa was originally planned to start on May 15.

well, that's what Guderian says. They wanted to be in Moscow in 3 months. The speed and surprise was the key. They wouldn't push through the mud if they could choose otherwise. Kiev was their undoing, not the start day.

Quote:

I think you misunderstood my previous reply. By declaring war on the US, Germany no longer needed to worry about sinking neutral (ie United States) shipping supplying the UK and USSR. They could just sink anything in the N Atlantic with impunity. I don't see any other reason for declaring war on the US, other than Hitler's megalomania.

?

[Marras]

Originally Posted by Mikeys

Hitler said straight up, when the British want to bomb a German city Luftwaffe will turn London to dust. He had means and the reach and resolution to do that.

Then why didn't London turn to dust when Luftwaffe tried to do just that in 1940?

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

I mean to keep up their strategy of destroying the RAF on the ground. It may have worked (again with better Luftwaffe leadership.) The Blitz did nothing at all to prevent the UK's night bombing campaign of Germany which started in 1940.

Except they couldn't destroy the RAF on the ground. The most they could do was force the RAF to pull back to bases outside of the range of German fighter cover and achieve air superiority over souther Englnad. That was only useful if Germany had the means to mount Operation Sealion, which they didn't.

Quote:

You're only counting the original 2 divisions of the Afrika Corps. German forces in Africa were greatly expanded. I don't have exact numbers, but it was certainly Army strength. Plus they had to leave troops behind to garrison Yugoslavia and Greece. And there were Luftwaffe forces diverted to the Med. But maybe most importantly of all Germany had to delay Barbarossa to bail Italy out in Greece. Had Germany launched Barbarossa 2 months earlier, and with Rommel commanding an extra armored corps, they just might have captured Moscow.

Which would probably have done them about as much good as it did Napoleon. The USSR is not going to surrender because Moscow falls, and taking the city is going to be a street by street nightmare. Come the winter of '41 the Germans are still freezing and starving at the end of a broken supply line and still get hammered by the counter-offensive.

Quote:

Oh and they had to defend Italy later in the war.

A valid point but no Italy in the war means the Allies don't invade it so it frees up resources and manpower for them as well.

Quote:

What exactly did Germany stand to gain from declaring war on the US? No longer worrying about sinking neutral shipping is about it. Not even close to worth it.

It's not a few neutral ships, it's Lend-Lease. A [ipleine fo vital war materiel to the UK and USSR. Not to mention that Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to provoke the Germans into war; the US navy was fighting an undeclared war against the U-Boats in the Atlantic already. Doenitz the commander of the U-Boats was pleading with Hitler for permission to attack shipping in US coastal waters for months before Pearl Harbour.

Quote:

Japan's goals were to capture the resources of the east indies to support their war in China. I've never heard that Hitler had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor.

As I understand it they didn't inform Hitler partly because he never told them about Barbarossa in advance. Oh and another reason for Hitler declaring war on the US was his hope that Japan might still be persuaded to attack the USSR and take some of the pressure off German forces.

Quote:

Actually OKW wanted to withdraw after the Normandy breakout instead of counter attacking, and was very much against the Ardennes offensive (the Battle of the Bulge). Hitler, insisted on them.

After the July 20th bomb plot Hitler lost all trust in OKW, there was no way they could influence him, and anyone who tried to hard would have been lucky to simply be removed from their post.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Mikeys

After the battle of Britain in 1940 the sky was clear, some ass-pulls perhaps, nothing worth of mention.

The RAF ended the Battle of Britain stronger than when it had entered it, even after the losses it had suffered during the battle.

Originally Posted by Mikeys

Hitler said straight up, when the British want to bomb a German city Luftwaffe will turn London to dust. He had means and the reach and resolution to do that.

Not really the means. To do strategic bombing properly one needed a force with equipment designed expressly for that purpose, and that means four-engined heavy bombers that have the payload capacity to drop the large number of and size of bombs needed. One also needed a large number of those heavy bombers, since most bombs that are dropped—particularly at night—aren't going to land anywhere near the target. The Germans never really developed a strategic heavy bomber. They had plenty of twin-engined medium bombers, but those aren't going to get the job done.

Air attacks can be defended against. Sometimes very successfully, if the right equipment and tactics are used.

[DDWW]

Stop when they “liberated” Poland. Sign peace treaty with England, France.

Scrap Bismarck & Tirpitz, build more long range subs.

Develop 4 engine long range bomber. Develop ME 262, & V-rockets (“for weather research”) Continue atom bomb program.

Go for France & England in 1944+/-. Invade France. Nuke an English coastal town. Negotiate with Ireland & Scotland to stay out of war. Do not invade Russia. Let Stalin purge their army some more. Sign treaty/keep peace with Russia & USA and open trade talks. Germany needs oil, Russia needs tractors.

Just my opinion.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by DDWW

Stop when they “liberated” Poland. Sign peace treaty with England, France.

Scrap Bismarck & Tirpitz, build more long range subs.

Develop 4 engine long range bomber. Develop ME 262, & V-rockets (“for weather research”) Continue atom bomb program.

Go for France & England in 1944+/-. Invade France. Nuke an English coastal town. Negotiate with Ireland & Scotland to stay out of war. Do not invade Russia. Let Stalin purge their army some more. Sign treaty/keep peace with Russia & USA and open trade talks. Germany needs oil, Russia needs tractors.

Just my opinion.

In other words the Germans do everything perfectly while their opponents are drooling idiots.

[Mikeys]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

The RAF ended the Battle of Britain stronger than when it had entered it, even after the losses it had suffered during the battle.






Not really the means. To do strategic bombing properly one needed a force with equipment designed expressly for that purpose, and that means four-engined heavy bombers that have the payload capacity to drop the large number of and size of bombs needed. One also needed a large number of those heavy bombers, since most bombs that are dropped—particularly at night—aren't going to land anywhere near the target. The Germans never really developed a strategic heavy bomber. They had plenty of twin-engined medium bombers, but those aren't going to get the job done.

Air attacks can be defended against. Sometimes very successfully, if the right equipment and tactics are used.

The point is they could have done enough harm the English would have had to opt to stay out, which is what happened after some persuasion on the part of Luftwaffe. Nazis didn't want to invade or bomb anything in Britain. What for? Luftwaffe was not profiled for such a war.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Garrison

Which would probably have done them about as much good as it did Napoleon. The USSR is not going to surrender because Moscow falls, and taking the city is going to be a street by street nightmare. Come the winter of '41 the Germans are still freezing and starving at the end of a broken supply line and still get hammered by the counter-offensive.

I never said capturing Moscow would end the war. It would have been a huge blow to the Soviets, and in all probability lengthened the war.

Quote:

It's not a few neutral ships, it's Lend-Lease. A [ipleine fo vital war materiel to the UK and USSR. Not to mention that Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to provoke the Germans into war; the US navy was fighting an undeclared war against the U-Boats in the Atlantic already. Doenitz the commander of the U-Boats was pleading with Hitler for permission to attack shipping in US coastal waters for months before Pearl Harbour.

I'm certainly aware of Lend-Lease and its impact on the war. Germany was already sinking convoys from the United States to the UK and USSR. They had to be careful on exactly what they sunk (I think lend-lease vessels were never US flagged), and some US Navy ships were indeed sunk, without open war resulting. I'm foggy on the details on the Atlantic War, I read a two different books on the subject, with each author coming to different conclusions, but that was over a decade ago.

I still don't believe open war with the US was worth a bit more effectiveness in the Atlantic War. Especially since advances in allied ASW fairly quickly made it un-winnable for Germany (of course no one knew that at the time).

Quote:

After the July 20th bomb plot Hitler lost all trust in OKW, there was no way they could influence him, and anyone who tried to hard would have been lucky to simply be removed from their post.

I was responding here about Germany not acting strategically late in the war. Which isn't true. The Ardennes offensive was certainly a strategic gamble by Hitler, just not a good one.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

This has been a pretty annoying thread with some remarkably ignorant opinions. However, it is an interesting subject with some very good posts, particularly Ian's.

@Ian

It's nice to meet another scholar. It sounds like your thesis was historical in nature but I could be wrong. I would be interested in reading it.

On the subject...



This was likely a major factor in the war. Without those scientists, Germany's pursuit of atomic power became problematical at best. Imagine the Nazi's with atomic weapons and you can well see how they could have won the war.

On a separate note, it's also interesting to note how simplistic people's view of the world war is. From the point of view of strategy and tactics even, Germany can hardly be seen as a unit. The German General Staff institution turned out brilliant tactics and several German generals were brilliant. This is contrasted by the Nazi party's predilection for promoting on the basis of politics and favoritism, and by Hitler's constant meddling in strategic affairs. Hitler had a great grasp of politics, as well as a pragmatic, even cynical view that worked out great at first. His lack of understanding of tactics though really impaired the war effort after it's initial successes. (BTW... a brief overview is likely to be missing a lot of detail.. obviously)

Overall, I don't think Germany could have ever taken on the world in a standard military conflict. The numbers would have been far too overwhelming. However, having nuclear weapons would have changed that greatly.

Thankfully, their racist policies insured that they never would.

You're not wrong. It's the real deal. You can order "Drinking From The Same Well" from FGCU by ILL. You can find it on Worldcat.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by DDWW

Do not invade Russia. Let Stalin purge their army some more. Sign treaty/keep peace with Russia & USA and open trade talks. Germany needs oil, Russia needs tractors.

Just my opinion.

The purges had already ended well before Barbarossa. The Soviet Army was actually being built up again by then. It's a matter of (conjectural) debate on if/when Stalin would just go ahead and invade Germany if they had never been attacked.

[StankApe]

IF the Germans had held to the non-aggression pact with the Soviets and never had the eastern front, could that have allowed them to focus their resources more effectively and perhaps maintained their control of most of central Europe? (by this I mean, avoided invading the UK but kept France,Poland,Belgium,Netherlands...etc)

Do you think the British and Americans would have gotten more involved had they stopped after France?

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Ian

That's an important factor, Sceptic-PK. Your point is central to how das Uranverein fell way behind the Manhattan Project. I recently published my thesis on how this happened, despite the fact that Germany had been a major leader in physics since the nineteenth century, and Randi is cited in the thesis (because of nationalistic thinking that divided scientists based on a few pages he gave me on his upcoming book about how Blondlot allowed this to get in the way of real science).

It's der, not das (Uran-)Verein.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

I never said capturing Moscow would end the war. It would have been a huge blow to the Soviets, and in all probability lengthened the war.

In a thread about how the Nazi's could have won lengthening the war so that German cities get nuked doesn't really qualify.

Quote:

I'm certainly aware of Lend-Lease and its impact on the war. Germany was already sinking convoys from the United States to the UK and USSR. They had to be careful on exactly what they sunk (I think lend-lease vessels were never US flagged), and some US Navy ships were indeed sunk, without open war resulting. I'm foggy on the details on the Atlantic War, I read a two different books on the subject, with each author coming to different conclusions, but that was over a decade ago.

I still don't believe open war with the US was worth a bit more effectiveness in the Atlantic War. Especially since advances in allied ASW fairly quickly made it un-winnable for Germany (of course no one knew that at the time).

Again it was the U-Boat commander pushing for it, and it was hardly a 'bit' more effective, look up 'Operation Drumroll'. The U-Boats ran riot, helped by USN intransigence over convoys. Also Roosevelt was determined to provoke the Germans. The USN was fighting an undeclared war in the Atlantic, up to and including attacking U-Boats. It was a matter of when not if Germany went to war with the US.

Quote:

I was responding here about Germany not acting strategically late in the war. Which isn't true. The Ardennes offensive was certainly a strategic gamble by Hitler, just not a good one.

It was a pure gamble, the only difference from the start of the war was that Hitler's luck had run out.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

It's der, not das (Uran-)Verein.

That is correct, Childlike Empress. Verein is a masculine word.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by StankApe

IF the Germans had held to the non-aggression pact with the Soviets and never had the eastern front, could that have allowed them to focus their resources more effectively and perhaps maintained their control of most of central Europe? (by this I mean, avoided invading the UK but kept France,Poland,Belgium,Netherlands...etc)

Do you think the British and Americans would have gotten more involved had they stopped after France?

But attacking in the east was the core of Hitler's plans, the deal with Stalin was never more than a temporary convenience.

[DDWW]

Originally Posted by Garrison

In other words the Germans do everything perfectly while their opponents are drooling idiots.

Yes! Hindsight is wonderful.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by Garrison

But attacking in the east was the core of Hitler's plans, the deal with Stalin was never more than a temporary convenience.

I know that, I was just asking IF.... (the OP was how they could have won the war) I was wondering if they had changed their minds and avoided invading the USSR (a terrible idea IMO, especially the manner in which it was done) IF they might have ended up being appeased further by the UK and USA.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Garrison

In a thread about how the Nazi's could have won lengthening the war so that German cities get nuked doesn't really qualify.

Some context: I was responding to a reply quoting the part of my original post saying here is what Germany could have done to hold out longer (but not win).

Quote:

Again it was the U-Boat commander pushing for it, and it was hardly a 'bit' more effective, look up 'Operation Drumroll'. The U-Boats ran riot, helped by USN intransigence over convoys. Also Roosevelt was determined to provoke the Germans. The USN was fighting an undeclared war in the Atlantic, up to and including attacking U-Boats. It was a matter of when not if Germany went to war with the US.

Yes, the U-boats had enormous success against our completely unprepared merchant marine along the Atlantic and Gulf Coast, and the Caribbean as well. But it was short lived. The US Navy went from the occasional clash with U-boats to all out war, and nearly annihilated them. They were better off maintaining the status quo of the sort of quasi-war they were in for as long as possible.

Hitler went to war with the US to encourage Japan to go after the Soviets (you said that and I don't disagree), but Japan had no plans at all to do this. Like I said in my first post, better cooperation and coordination between the axis would have made a big difference.

[StankApe]

The best actual response would probably be "They should have stopped after they were given the Sudetenland"


if that qualifies as 'winning" anyway.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by StankApe

The best actual response would probably be "They should have stopped after they were given the Sudetenland"


if that qualifies as 'winning" anyway.

It's a close as they could get and even then Germany was nearly bankrupt from the cost of rearmament.

[StankApe]

True they kinda HAD to start some trouble to get everyone working... nothing will fix an economy like a bonafide world war.

[Mikeys]

Originally Posted by Garrison

In other words the Germans do everything perfectly while their opponents are drooling idiots.

The Wochenshau scenario. It worked so well that the east Prussian German population didn't know what hit them in 1945.

[Mikeys]

Originally Posted by StankApe

True they kinda HAD to start some trouble to get everyone working... nothing will fix an economy like a bonafide world war.

There was no need to look for trouble in post Versailles, typhus-ridden Europe.

[StankApe]

I was replying to Garrison's post about the near bankrupt state of Germany's economy after their rearmament. They had very little option but to follow through with the war or watch their power diminish as the economy collapsed entirely

[Mikeys]

Originally Posted by StankApe

I was replying to Garrison's post about the near bankrupt state of Germany's economy after their rearmament. They had very little option but to follow through with the war or watch their power diminish as the economy collapsed entirely

Why would the economy collapse? In what way, with what consequences? Reparations had been cancelled, grain was flowing from the SU at bargain rates, the army was strong to negotiate deals. Who were the creditors?

[Scott Haley]

Before the U.S. entered the war, a lot of prominent Americans were pro-Nazi. Is it plausible that the United States might have allied with Nazi Germany?