The always returning discussion: Could Nazi-Germany have won WW2?

[Cyclops]

Because they weren't interested.
Go back in time and show them a movie about Hiroshima. See what happens after.

Hilter kills himself when he realises it represents a war-winning weapon his country cannot afford?

Seriously it cost two billion dollars, thats 5% of Germany's nominal GDP (which was itself vastly inflated by IOU's and other dodgy economics). Germany literally sent itself broke rearming a force that lost the war, so adding a wonder weapon at the end simply reduces the other forces available at the beginning.

Germany also lacked the brainpower. It took the abilities of many European expats, as well as UK and US scientists to build this thing, with all the resources of the free world. The atom bomb was beyond German capability to build.

[Mayer]

I strongly disagree with the notion that the state ideology was completely broken/flawed.
No german poltician achieved the degree of popularity which Hitler enjoyed, and unlike other countries with personality cult this was for the most part genuine. He led a social revolution, ending unemployment and allowing prosperity on an unprecedented scale for the lower classes, it was in his reign that workers were for the first time able to make vacations. And this while he started from a worse situation than F.D.R, lacking his gold reserves and ressources of a continent and having no benefactor to help him. Also the brain drain was nowhere as serious as in the Soviet Union.
It was only the war, especially the 2nd half with the worsening situation and more repressive methods of the government which led to disillusion and denial by the majority of germans

If Germany would have somehow won the war, it is unlikely that a riot similar to that of 1953 in East Germany would have happend because Nazi Germany did not share the deficiencies of a puppet government trying to press out reperations for a occupier in a ruined country.


About the war, i think it is save to say that the Africa front was merely a sideshow. Started by Italy without major interest by Germany, it had more of a propaganda value because victories in the libyan desert were achievable with very few troops in comparison to the war in Russia, making it interesting material for german propaganda newsreels but nothing more. Even when italy itself was invaded, it didn't disturb Germany much. Mussolinis Italy was not a much of a help and the allied advance was halted at the Gothic Line.

In my opinion the greatest strategic misconceptions of Hitler were:

1. massive underestimation of the capabilities of the Soviet Union
Now i have to be fair, the belief that the USSR was weak and would collapse on itself wasn't only held by Hitler, even the Pentagon thought in case of a german invasion, the Soviet Union would fall within 3 weeks. This was obviously nonsense but the poor performance of the Red Army in the Winter War contributed to this view.
It certainly played a role that Hitler viewed slavs as inferior and bolshevism as a weak jewish construct with the stability of a house of cards but the reality was that the USSR was the biggest country of the planet with a plethora of resources and a brutish centralized rule which could sustain loyalty and recruit soldiers in even the worst situations


2. war with the USA
The declaration of war against the USA while being at war with the UK and the USSR was incredible stupid and was not a necessity of the Tripartite Pact which was defensive in nature (article 3)
This can only be explained by Hitler's assessment of the USSR as being practically defeated in december 1941 and that he overestimated Japan's abilities. In fact he just viewed it as formality because F.D.R already intervened with Lend-Lease and defense of british convoys.


3. the occupation policy in the east
I would call this a unused opportunity. Especially the Balts and the Ukrainians were very sympathetic towards the germans in the beginning and often greeted them with flowers when they drove away the bolsheviks in 41. But the occupation policy based on racial objectives (looting, executions, exploitation, starvation) made these inhabitants hostile and soon many supply routes were endangered by guerillas.

Germany also lacked the brainpower. It took the abilities of many European expats, as well as UK and US scientists to build this thing, with all the resources of the free world. The atom bomb was beyond German capability to build.

Although the german nuclear program only led to a small-scale reactor, Germany would be more than capable to develop a fission bomb on itself. Besides nuclear fission was discovered by the german scientist Otto Hahn, "lack of brainpower" my ass
Also Einstein pushed F.D.R for an atomic program because he thought the first a-bomb might be otherwise german: Einstein–Szilárd letter

[nemgod]

Third, continue the policy of bombing airfields and factories of United Kingdom. DO NOT SHIFT TO BOMBING CITIES.

Pretty much couldn't be done for two reasons. Britain started to bomb cities and the German people demanded reprisals

Secondly, Britain was able to already move their airfields further north out of the reach of the German fighter escorts. So if the Germans wanted the airfields bombed they would have to lose near enough all the bombers to a defensive RAF.

[brandbll]

Germany probably could have won WWII had a couple of those wonder weapons turned out. Like that flying bell looking thing. I saw it on a History Channel show once, so of course nothing about it is real in any capacity. BUT, had they made one of those and had it actually worked...it probably would have turned the tides of the war.

[conon394]

2. war with the USA
The declaration of war against the USA while being at war with the UK and the USSR was incredible stupid and was not a necessity of the Tripartite Pact which was defensive in nature (article 3)
This can only be explained by Hitler's assessment of the USSR as being practically defeated in december 1941 and that he overestimated Japan's abilities. In fact he just viewed it as formality because F.D.R already intervened with Lend-Lease and defense of british convoys.

It was just a formality and it was worth it 0 that is do declare war. Japan should have reciprocated and declared war on the USSR.

War with Japan still gave FDR all the economic and political tools he needed to fully realize the latent US military strength. The US would continue to cooperate with the UK, LL could still likely be extended to the USSR (even if not the FDR could likely sidestep congress and pass through to the UK), The US and UK would simply have to coordinate flows of US troops to everywhere from India to Australia so that UK strength would be concentrated in the ETO. Hiter would still face the problem of FDR's aggressive neutrality in the Atlantic and likelihood that effective attacks on UK shipping was likely to produce the kind of incidents FDR
wanted.

Germany probably could have won WWII had a couple of those wonder weapons turned out. Like that flying bell looking thing. I saw it on a History Channel show once, so of course nothing about it is real in any capacity. BUT, had they made one of those and had it actually worked...it probably would have turned the tides of the war.

No they were a waste of time, money and resources and none could have won the war for Germany. Focusing on the USSR, Japan declaring war on the USSR, Japan not loosing at Midway and better occupation polices (if if you do aim for eventual genocides - It is logical to wait till you win) -> producing , maybe the fall of the USSR before 44, that is the only way Germany could win. It would still require a negotiated settlement since Germany would still be fatally exposed to US/UK use of the bomb in 12-18 months.

------------------------

Although the german nuclear program only led to a small-scale reactor, Germany would be more than capable to develop a fission bomb on itself. Besides nuclear fission was discovered by the german scientist Otto Hahn, "lack of brainpower" my ass
Also Einstein pushed F.D.R for an atomic program because he thought the first a-bomb might be otherwise german

No Germany did lack brain power and the infrastructure to develop a Bomb. The simple fact its program was flawed riddled with scientific mistakes, missteps and petty ego fights. People forget it was the leaders of the program the scientists though the ideal was impractical or least the stuff far future developments.

If you cannceled all the V rocket programs they might have made available the potential engineering capacity for a program, but still it would be based on flawed theory and lack the redundancy of the US/UK effort. Open collaboration with Japan might have helped and might have exposed some of the fatal flaws Heisenberg imposed on the German tinkering but that was beyond unlikely both for practical resons and that was not something Hitler would do.

[Hresvelgr]

Germany probably could have won WWII had a couple of those wonder weapons turned out. Like that flying bell looking thing. I saw it on a History Channel show once, so of course nothing about it is real in any capacity. BUT, had they made one of those and had it actually worked...it probably would have turned the tides of the war.

German wunderwaffe was inferior to the American wonder weapons. Honestly, all their projects, most of which never left blueprints and many of them didn't even progress to that stage beyond napkin drawings, they kinda strike me more as quirky, dorky stuff meant to appeal to people not really thinking of the big picture of the war. They designed a suborbital bomber that didn't have enough heat shielding to survive reentry, they wanted to turn their Me-262 into a strike bomber when the Americans already had giant 4-engined bomber aircraft in the thousands over their skies. I've actually seen and heard one flying over my house and it was impressive enough on its own, I mean it's a really distinct buzzing sound it makes, but imagining what it must've been like to see hundreds at once is terrifying and the USA made over 12,000 of them, and that was just one bomber type. While the Nazis were fantasizing over their Amerika Bomber designs they were only able to put one aircraft describable as a long range bomber into production, making a thousand of them compared to the much larger B-17s and B-24s that America had over 30,000 of, as well as the various British and Soviet heavy bombers.

Hell, if the measuring stick for wonder weapons is not effectiveness but instead how exotic and strange and different it is, the Allies still competed and outperformed the Germans. The British came up with an idea to build a titanic aircraft carrier out of ice. And tests showed that the material planned to use in its construction were as effective as claimed, the only thing preventing it from being made was that it was deemed unnecessary. And then of course there's the atom bomb. Making a sleek fancy jet plane doesn't compare to the power to destroy a city with a single blast, and then do it again, and again, and again if need be. While people were talking about German military tech being so great because cannons had so many millimeters for a caliber the Americans were harnessing the power gained from splitting atoms. Nuclear weapons are the real wunderwaffe.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

Provided that France and the UK didn't declare war on Germany during thier invasion of Poland... Yeah I think Germany would of had a pretty good shot of winning WW2 with it being Germany+USSR VS Poland.

[Gaidin]

More or less what I did not what to bother posting - good post.

If Germany Hitler had been shot and some kind of Military rule imposed and the war fought rationally. and the US/UK Atomic project was delayed Germany and Japan might have been able to fight to not lose completely but that is about it. But that would require in 1942 or so that Germany realize that already and simply stand on flexible defense in 42 (and commit to maximum total war in the east and across Germany - no stupid little economic fiefdoms and no wondering off after wonder weapons) and for Japan not suffer a crushing defeat at Midway.

Given that German and Japan could make it to 46, but like I said than the game is over. The only real variable is if the USSR could have been defeated circa 1943/44 (or best in 42) but Japan and German were not on the same page on that and it was only thing that might have convinced the US and UK to terms before cites started being evaporated

The problem here is the USSR. Really. Germany wasn't really going to win a World War as long as Japan was pushing east as well. Somehow they'd have to cooperate and force the USSR into two fronts on their own land, but I have my doubts that Japan would ever be more than an annoyance in any realistic alternate history to them just like they were in reality. That's assuming Germany even bothers with the USSR before it batters the hell out of the UK. But that's neither here nor there.

[Wulfburk]

Provided that France and the UK didn't declare war on Germany during thier invasion of Poland... Yeah I think Germany would of had a pretty good shot of winning WW2 with it being Germany+USSR VS Poland.

Dont think that would have been a world war though...


I think that as soon as Churchill became prime minister it became clear that Britain would hold out as long as it could, which basically means that eventually the german submarine strategy against the UK would turn the world against it, even without Pearl Harbour the US would probably join the war when the jerries started attacking random ships of random nationalities to make the UK starve.

And the german strategy as soon as they thought of it basically pinpointed their goal of attacking the soviet union at one point. If the UK woudnt surrender and germany followed that plan, you already got the UK + USSR against Germany. Even without the US (but with the US lend lease), it comes close to what happened. The only difference would have probably been some more territory behind the iron curtain. But a counterpoint is that the battle of the atlantic would have been won by the UK much faster since they woudnt have to send ships to the pacific to fight Japan (and the US basically did nothing in the battle of the atlantic against german and italian ships), and all the war effort in South East asia would be transfered to Europe. That comes close to counterring the real US assistance (disconsidering lend lease).

I mean, up until June 1944 the british had way more divisions in all the FRONTS (so the indian army doesnt counts, but the 14th one does) than the US. The british 8th army was way bigger than the US 5th army (and there would be no mark Clark to up). In tunisia there was 4 British corps, 1 french and 1 american....

So basically IMO the only way of Germany winning the war was to fight either the UK OR the USSR. With both of them it already screws their plan.

[Turtler]

I would personally say yes. While it's tempting and trendy to look back with what we know and see events as they happened as all but pre-ordained between the superior technology, manpower, and resources of the allies and how supremely dysfunctional the Axis was... I don't think it works quite so neatly. Nazi Germany came painfully close to winning the war at several points in OTL even with Hitler, the problems of Nazism, "Aryan Science", and going to war against most of the world.

To name just one case, Churchill's fight with the British government in the heady days after the fall of the West in 1940- with the Soviets acting as Hitler's greatest (albeit indirect) ally and the Italians entering the war- was something of a close run thing. Had Halifax gotten into office, he would most likely have sought peace on terms favorable to the Germans. Which would more or less end the conflict started in 1939 on terms favorable to Nazi Germany. It would doubtless have not been the last war to be fought over it, local resistance movements to Nazi takeovers, Hitler and Stalin being destined to split sooner or later, and the fact that even a West that had admitted defeat in 1940 would probably fight again would have made for a long road. But it still fell to Churchill and his allies pointing out the obvious (that Hitler had to literally subjugate Britain in order for the West to be conquered) in a climate where it could easily have been overlooked that prevented such a major victory.

And then we have the various kinks and hews of North Africa and especially the Eastern Front, where I believe people underestimate just how close the Soviet war machine came to breaking down or getting overwhelmed at times. The start of Barbarossa- overcomplicated, overambitious, underprepared thing that it was- was an absolute disaster for the USSR that was only stopped because of Axis over-extension and lack of preparation for the Rasputina and Winter, the Axis trying to grab too many things and ending up far shorter than they would have had they simply-say- focused their attacks, and when it comes down to it the Soviets calling up every reserve and rallying almost every soldier to cushion Moscow from the spearheads for Winter to set in. Had the Axis been able to make a battle inside Moscow itself- even if they didn't take it- the damage to the Soviet state would've been immense. Had they been able to take it, European Russia would have lain in their stomach and the resources on the other side of the Urals were underdeveloped, misdeveloped, and laying on top of tons of prisoners of questionable loyalty.

Then we get into the rest of the war, where the Axis came fairly close to defeating the Soviets at several times and actually maintained a competitive force for a long, long time. The main engagement between Stalingrad and Kursk *was* an Axis victory against rather lopsided numbers, after all, and you also had very inspired late game moves like the near-miraculous relief of the Korsun pocket. All of which should underline that the victory of the neigh-mythical "Russian hordes and Russian winter"* Especially since had the Japanese actually been willing to jump on the bandwagon (which they were not for plenty of legitimate reasons), the Axis would have even had the advantage in the raw numbers of cannonfodder people credit the Russians for, as well as the advantage of fighting a two front war against the Soviets.

And again: this was all *with* Hitler, with Nazism, with the resource-draining death camps, with the factional infighting, and with everything else that both makes the Nazis what we all love to hate and helped them lose. So I do believe there is a definitive chance they could have won, even if not a very strong one. If they can force the West to give up the ghost early they can gain breathing time to consolidate and pick away at the empires that helped supported it before the next round. if they can basically crush organized Soviet resistance, they will have the resources of continental Eurasia behind them, and from there with internal lines things get very menacing.

Even if they had managed to do one of these things or even both, it is quite possible they would have lost in the long term. But I do believe it was not "written."

[Cyclops]

... it's tempting and trendy to look back with what we know and see events as they happened as all but pre-ordained between the superior technology, manpower, and resources of the allies and how supremely dysfunctional the Axis was... I don't think it works quite so neatly. Nazi Germany came painfully close to winning the war at several points in OTL even with Hitler, the problems of Nazism, "Aryan Science", and going to war against most of the world.

Actually its tempting and trendy to say Germany could have won WW2, the popular version of WW2 is wunderwaffe that nearly won the war, rather than the more informed veiw of a tiny economy punching above its weight because of allied errors.

To name just one case, Churchill's fight with the British government in the heady days after the fall of the West in 1940- with the Soviets acting as Hitler's greatest (albeit indirect) ally and the Italians entering the war- was something of a close run thing. Had Halifax gotten into office, he would most likely have sought peace on terms favorable to the Germans. Which would more or less end the conflict started in 1939 on terms favorable to Nazi Germany. It would doubtless have not been the last war to be fought over it, local resistance movements to Nazi takeovers, Hitler and Stalin being destined to split sooner or later, and the fact that even a West that had admitted defeat in 1940 would probably fight again would have made for a long road. But it still fell to Churchill and his allies pointing out the obvious (that Hitler had to literally subjugate Britain in order for the West to be conquered) in a climate where it could easily have been overlooked that prevented such a major victory.

The UK has a history of going to war and staying at war with any regime dominating the channel ports. To suggest the UK establishment would've accepted peace with Hitler is a pretty remote scenario. The fact that a widely detested person like Churchill was put in charge may have signalled the establishment wanted a pariah to do the dirty deed of surrendering, but the alternate reading is it was a big FU to Hitler by appointing his most rabid opponent.

And then we have the various kinks and hews of North Africa and especially the Eastern Front, where I believe people underestimate just how close the Soviet war machine came to breaking down or getting overwhelmed at times. The start of Barbarossa- overcomplicated, overambitious, underprepared thing that it was- was an absolute disaster for the USSR that was only stopped because of Axis over-extension and lack of preparation for the Rasputina and Winter, the Axis trying to grab too many things and ending up far shorter than they would have had they simply-say- focused their attacks, and when it comes down to it the Soviets calling up every reserve and rallying almost every soldier to cushion Moscow from the spearheads for Winter to set in. Had the Axis been able to make a battle inside Moscow itself- even if they didn't take it- the damage to the Soviet state would've been immense. Had they been able to take it, European Russia would have lain in their stomach and the resources on the other side of the Urals were underdeveloped, misdeveloped, and laying on top of tons of prisoners of questionable loyalty.

The German victories in Russia were almost inconceivably lucky, combining Soviet blunders on an administrative, intelligence tactical and strategic level. "If Germany had done better" is straining the envelope, the main chance was IMHO they could've done much worse.

Then we get into the rest of the war, where the Axis came fairly close to defeating the Soviets at several times and actually maintained a competitive force for a long, long time. The main engagement between Stalingrad and Kursk *was* an Axis victory against rather lopsided numbers, after all, and you also had very inspired late game moves like the near-miraculous relief of the Korsun pocket. All of which should underline that the victory of the neigh-mythical "Russian hordes and Russian winter"* Especially since had the Japanese actually been willing to jump on the bandwagon (which they were not for plenty of legitimate reasons), the Axis would have even had the advantage in the raw numbers of cannonfodder people credit the Russians for, as well as the advantage of fighting a two front war against the Soviets.

The Japanese furphy is a bust, they were committed in China without the resources to effectively run the Pacific or Chinese wars, a Siberian front is a fantasy.

And again: this was all *with* Hitler, with Nazism, with the resource-draining death camps, with the factional infighting, and with everything else that both makes the Nazis what we all love to hate and helped them lose. So I do believe there is a definitive chance they could have won, even if not a very strong one. If they can force the West to give up the ghost early they can gain breathing time to consolidate and pick away at the empires that helped supported it before the next round. if they can basically crush organized Soviet resistance, they will have the resources of continental Eurasia behind them, and from there with internal lines things get very menacing.

I disagree. Restart the world from 1933 over a hundred replays and Nazi Germany will fall in all of them, I'd guess, usually through economic collapse in the 1930's, from a French occupation in a few and from a Soviet defeat in the rest. Restart it in 1939 and Germny loses in the period 1943-1946 every time.

Even if they had managed to do one of these things or even both, it is quite possible they would have lost in the long term. But I do believe it was not "written."

I thinkit was unbelievable how well Nazi Germany fought and so much went their way just to last five and a half years of war.

[Turtler]

Actually its tempting and trendy to say Germany could have won WW2, the popular version of WW2 is wunderwaffe that nearly won the war, rather than the more informed veiw of a tiny economy punching above its weight because of allied errors.

Firstly, I think a lot of things tend to be trendy at various points and times, or even at the same one. The over-exaggerated view of Nazi German science/military accomplishments/ etc is just one manifestation of such a trendy opinion in pop history, but I would also argue that viewing the Axis- and especially Nazi Germany and its' satellites- as an insignificant little Alamo against the Russian Steamroller/British Empire/Industrial Might of America/ Pick one depending on your preference is another trendy idea that is similar to the former in a lot of ways.

Secondly, let's get one thing out of the way: we are Not dealing with a tiny economy when talking about the World War Reichs. We were already looking at something that had blown post most of its' European neighbors and was seemingly poised to overtake Metropolitan France and Great Britain's home front on the outbreak of WWI, and which had experience running the sort of hegemonic economic power that the Nazis would use until defeat shut down both. Defeat in WWI and the decade or two of chaos and retrenchment on the home front didn't do it any favors and caused a lot of that capacity to be mothballed, but as Schacht and others correctly realized it was still a defeated nation's economy in one of the biggest and most industrialized nations in Europe proper, and one which was already starting to give a good account of itself before Hitler came to power.

Like in WWI it ran out of steam after sizable amounts of the population wound up dead, imprisoned, or crippled and the Allies were able to use their resources to impose an effective blockade that cut it off from the resources of the outside world. But also like in WWI, they were going up against one of the more formidable single economies in Europe at the time, and one that eventually sprawled over and incorporated a system that included just about all of mainland Europe to greater (Germany itself, Italy, Romania, etc) or lesser (Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, etc) degrees.

Was it tiny in comparison to the global market or the resources that would eventually wind up getting thrown against it (considering those two categories were nearly identical)? Sure; but what isn't? And having an entire continent at your whim to one degree or another with the realistic capability of getting more is nothing to be sneezed at. God knows the Allies didn't, and if anything can be said to have made the Nazi German economy "tiny" in comparison to its' potential (beyond the Allied sanctions of course) it would have been Hitler's own looter syndrome/vampirism in subordinating the territories that came under his sway to more or less service Germany irregardless of the bigger picture. And even on such an ineffective and autocannibalistic system, it was still pretty dang big.

The UK has a history of going to war and staying at war with any regime dominating the channel ports.

* Or that has a realistic chance of dominating the channel ports (as we saw with Louis XIV) or mainland Europe in general (hello USSR/Germany/Tsarist Russia/Habsburgs/Sweden). Fixed it for you.

And it's not like Britain has never made peace with a clear enemy in control of the Channel Ports. Just look at the Treaty of Amiens with a Napoleonic France that dominated the Low Countries, the West Bank of the Rhine, and Italy. It's not remembered very strongly because it fell through so quickly, but it did happen. Likewise with the humiliations of the 2nd and 3rd Dutch Wars, the War of Austrian Succession (when de Saxe had more or less throttled the Anglo-Dutch armies in the Austrian Netherlands and was poised to break through to the heart of the Dutch Republic), and the truce in the 80 Years' War leaving Dunkirk and the Southern Netherlands under hostile Habsburg control. Or the American Revolution seeing the entire Atlantic seaboard from Gibraltar to the Hague light up as hostile.

And finally, the fact that we ultimately got to this situation because the English crown threw in the towel in the fights for mainland France, ending at Calais.

Those aren't well remembered for good reasons. They either had minimal direct effect on Anglo naval security or didn't lead to the much-feared invasion. But they are clear cases that British governments can be forced to terms while the enemy maintains possession of the Channel Ports, and the even greater fiasco of 1940 coupled with the Halifax-Churchill conflict indicates that the British Government certainly was in a crisis about this.

It is very much to their credit that the British rarely did make peace under such circumstances, and it is certainly so that they didn't make *this* peace. But that doesn't change the fact that they could be forced into it.

To suggest the UK establishment would've accepted peace with Hitler is a pretty remote scenario.

I'm not suggesting anything. They were the ones who suggested it, as the finer details of the politicking around Churchill's appointment and figuring out who Cham's replacement would be show.

The fact that a widely detested person like Churchill was put in charge may have signalled the establishment wanted a pariah to do the dirty deed of surrendering, but the alternate reading is it was a big FU to Hitler by appointing his most rabid opponent.

I agree that the appointment of Churchill shows the British government's intent to fight the war to the finish, particularly since the time around the dawn of the war saw Churchill come out of the Pariahhood he'd won himself opposing Indian Home Rule and (to a lesser extent) appeasement during the interbellum. Even if some people were looking over their shoulders at the fringe benefit that Churchill would be the one biting the bullet if it came to that, it certainly indicates that the British were prepared to soldier on for the foreseeable future.

The problem is that they very nearly didn't appoint Churchill as replacement, and several other candidates with differing views on how to conduct the war (or to conduct it at all) were also competing for the office, including the "Doves" such as Halifax, who might've dramatically shaken things up had they gotten in. Even if what Halifax signed was only the equivalent of the Treaty of Amiens with Hitler, it would have still been a major result.

The German victories in Russia were almost inconceivably lucky, combining Soviet blunders on an administrative, intelligence tactical and strategic level. "If Germany had done better" is straining the envelope, the main chance was IMHO they could've done much worse.

The problem is that is only looking at the opening stages of the Eastern Front, and if the Ostfront should teach us *anything at all* it's that wars are not just the beginning. I agree that the initial offensives were gobsmackingly lucky for lack of a better word. You don't get much better than that, particularly since even the Mongols took a few years to get equivalent progress.

However, chalking it all up to luck and Soviet blunders has to run out of steam sometime, just like the historical Axis drives did. The fact remains that even years after the worst of the Soviet jetsam was tossed by Stalin and STAVKA or killed for them by the Axis, the Axis were still deep in the European USSR and still fighting on a relatively even footing with the awakening Sovet war machine. Even the absolute catastrophes of Stalingrad and Kursk- which were very much war turners- did not bring the Axis armies to instantaneous screetching collapse. In spite of the absolutely crippling losses of Stalingrad, the Germans were still capable of defeating numerically superior Soviet forces attempting to make a fight for Kharkov, and even after Kursk pretty much put the writing on the cards and Bagration underlined their failures and Soviet success, we still saw victories like those at Narva and the initial humiliations at Seelowe Heights. Both of which were long after it was clear what the war would run out as, and long after the Soviets stopped making mistakes on the magnitudes of '41 and '42.

So am I supposed to believe that every single victory against the Soviets in the entire war was down purely to luck? Or do we admit there are other factors at play?

Because to be honest, I can't think of a greater insult to give to the Soviets than to say they were somehow foreordained to win, no matter what they did.

The Japanese furphy is a bust, they were committed in China without the resources to effectively run the Pacific or Chinese wars, a Siberian front is a fantasy.

You know that and I know that. Unfortunately, it's well established that the IJA and IJN did not. As shown by the fact that their response to getting in over their heads with the Chinese war was first to invade a Western (albeit Vichy) colony on Hitler's coattails and then *to shop around for yet a bigger war*, both in the Russian Far East and with the Western Allies in the Pacific.
Unfortunately, as that exact same war demonstrated, Japan's fantasies could still be all too lethal and problematic, and not just to Japan. It still took three bloody years to defeat the Japanese in a war almost everybody knew was well beyond Japan's limits. And an invasion of the Soviet Far East in coordination with the Reich would have been far less ambitious than the historical Strike South, especially if conducted instead of Strike South instead of alongside it (if that was even possible, which is questionable and another can o worms).

The Japanese are unlikely to gain a decisive victory in Siberia, but a Soviet Union that is heavily committed in the West and keeping a track of all its' penal colonies in Siberia is also not in a great shape to do that. The Soviet Far Eastern navy was in no shape to confront the IJN on its' home turf, Sakhalin and the Soviet Pacific islands and coastal extremities would have fallen almost as an afterthought (not unlike how much of Japan's conquests in the early days of the Pacific did), and the cold weather experience the IJA and N have with putting hundreds of thousands of troops into the Northeast Asian mainland (as they had done several times in the past few decades, including during the Russian Civil War and the 1904-5 one) mean the Far Eastern Army is going to have a difficult time of it.

And more importantly, it brings another source of manpower on line against the Soviets, and it forces them to split their focus. Which would likely be just as decisive if not more as any victories the Kwantung army manages to win (or doesn't). The fact that this entire commitment is horrendously costly to the Japanese and will probably see their supply lines implode in a couple of years isn't going to be of much reassurance to a Soviet Union struggling to live into the next year.

I disagree. Restart the world from 1933 over a hundred replays and Nazi Germany will fall in all of them,

I would like to hear the logic for that, because that strikes me as being rather pretentious. Not so much because of the possibilities of a Nazi German victory being less than 100 (which I could believe) but moreso the unspoken assumption that it literally couldn't fare any better under any conceivable circumstances. And that sounds an awful lot like the sort of complacency that led to things like the Ardennes rush breaking the Maginot line in 1940.

I'd guess, usually through economic collapse in the 1930's, from a French occupation in a few and from a Soviet defeat in the rest.

Those are all very reasonable and all too plausible outcomes. The only quibble I might have is the prominence of "from a Soviet defeat", in spite of the problems that were already evident with the Soviet Union trying to carry the main brunt of the land war alone. But on the whole, I do agree that these were probably more likely than a Nazi victory.

Restart it in 1939 and Germny loses in the period 1943-1946 every time.

By what logic?

Your response gave insanely short shrift to factors like the tussle for Chamberlain's successor in 1940, amongst other things. So again, this strikes me as more comfy complacency than an accurate portrayal of the Third Reich's resources (and lack thereof). Particularly if we're calling the Nazi economy "tiny", when that is about the last thing I would call it. (inbred? Yes. Inefficient? Mostly. Corrupt? Definitely. But tiny? I don't see that).

Let's be blunt here. Nazism had huge dosages of stupidity as well as evil. Germany had major limitations in what it could realistically do or build. It ultimately couldn't take the same sort of manpower losses the Soviet or Chinese ones could, its' position at the heart of Europe sprawling out might as well have been a big "Bomb Me" sign on it, and once war began with the West in earnest blockades were inevitable. It was "led" by a rather lazy totalitarian dictator and his horde of feuding functionaries, and it kneecapped itself with the joys of things like "Aryan Science", had its' biggest alliance with one of its' rhetorical arch enemies and hated racial demon, and its' next biggest alliance with an even more hideously vulnerable nation on the other side of the planet. There's no point in exaggerating its' weaknesses because it already had *plenty.*

But let's not kid ourselves. None of that meant it was small, insignificant, weak, or foreordained to lose. If it had, we probably could've kissed the Burmese Junta goodbye decades ago.

I thinkit was unbelievable how well Nazi Germany fought and so much went their way just to last five and a half years of war.

In that case, I think you're falling victim to looking at the Nazi German war performance as being a lot more superhuman than it was. Yes, they certainly packed a punch. Yes, they probably punched above their weight limit. But the fact is that they weren't just some sort of tragic Alamoesque defeated who eventually succumbed to overwhelming odds in spite of their preformance.

There's that side of them too, don't get me wrong. But a lot of times it just came down to them farqing up, and even throwing away advantages that could or even *would* have gotten them further than they did. One of the key reasons they were vulnerable to the strategy the Soviets used at Stalingrad was that they neglected their ability to cut off and isolate the city from reinforcements like so much of Blitzkrieg was about, leaving the Soviets to funnel in reinforcements more or less at their discretion and eventually get ready for the pincer move the Axis should have thought about making. A major reason why they continuously under-preformed in North Africa was that Rommel wasn't just a tactical mastermind, but also a prima dona and logistical and strategic blunderer when left to his own devices without strong scrutiny. He outran his supplies, became terminally dependent on stealing Western Allied stockpiles, played poorly with both Italian and German staffs, and ultimately was surprised when the Western Allies took steps to leave him high and dry without his "fix" of captured supplies. Kursk saw an incredibly obvious attack get anticipated to death by the Soviets. The Battle of Britain bled the Luftwaffe dry when it could have been more credibly used elsewhere.

And I could go on and on and on. But the moral of the story is that looking at the Nazi German war record in WWII and finding *only* the successes unbelievable is problematic, and only tells half of the story.

[Cyclops]

Look its a big question, you're not convinced by all my points and vice versa. I respect there are points to be debated but my mind hasn't been changed by anything in this thread.

We agree the Nazis did insane things, like starting a war they couldn't win (the reason their opponents were so often unprepared). I think their mistakes are evidence of their failure as a system, you see the possibility of improvement.

We agree the Nazi economy was dwarfed by the opposition their opponents. I feel this made victory impossible, you feel they had some chance.

I respect there are other views, but I remain unconvinced by them.

[Turtler]

Look its a big question, you're not convinced by all my points and vice versa. I respect there are points to be debated but my mind hasn't been changed by anything in this thread.

Indeed, and there is nothing wrong with that. It's a big question and there are always going to be different ways to approach it, so no worries or problems there.

We agree the Nazis did insane things, like starting a war they couldn't win (the reason their opponents were so often unprepared). I think their mistakes are evidence of their failure as a system, you see the possibility of improvement.

You misunderstand me. I don't see those two as necessarily being mutually exclusive.

I agree that their mistakes *are* evidence of their failures as a system, much like the Soviet Union's failure to bring the West to its' knees and its' blunders against the Axis in 1941-2 were evidence of their failures as a system.That is only fair; if we're going to give them credit for what they succeeded at it only makes sense to give them flak for what they failed at.

My stance is just that systems are not all pre-ordianed to fail in the ways they did, or that those failures were necessarily going to make it lose the war. To use a related example, if Tuchachevsky and his fellows managed to ride out the purges alive and in a good enough position to have their theories be put into practice earlier and more widely, it's quite possible that several embarrassing defeats the Soviets suffered might have been minimized or avoided even though the colossal, underlying mistake that was the Communist system would have remained. The fact that Stalin murdered several of his most skilled military commanders is evidence of a flaw in his system, but not necessarily a flaw that was pre-determined.

Likewise with the Nazis and their robbing Pyotr to pay Paul, Hitler's egomania, and other things. All of which are condemnations of Nazism if there ever was one, but none of which stopped armies fighting for them from succeeding on occasion. Indeed, for all the (justifiable_ flak Hitler's egomania and type A tendencies get, It's worth remembering that those things and his refusal to take No for an answer was one of the reasons Sickle Cut proved to be considerably more decisive than the old guard opposed to Guderian etc. al. could ever have hoped for.

We agree the Nazi economy was dwarfed by the opposition their opponents. I feel this made victory impossible, you feel they had some chance.

Agreed, that is indeed the case.

I respect there are other views, but I remain unconvinced by them.

Likewise. I just am happy to debate or discuss it out with anyone willing.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The likelihood of Germany actually beating Britain in a war is as likely as Rommel actually succeeding in Africa. That is to say next to none.
Not to mention that America is actually already in this war on Britain's side. Unless Italy can learn to pull its own weight and annihilate Andrew Cunningham's forces it's just a no go. Unless of course the Germans can successfully defeat the USSR and harvest it in order to fix their economy and put the county on a total war footing, a real one and none of that cutting corners which the Germans had to do.

To follow up on some points made here:
I do believe the Japanese could have launched an attack on Siberia in 1941. They had a strong presence in Inner Mongolia and backed by the troops in Manchuria the Japanese could have attacked Mongolia, Vladivostok and Khabarovsk at the very least.

I also dare say that Tukachevsky was an overrated figure in the sense of the common argument that if only he had been alive then _____. No amount of Tukachevskys and Bylukhers would have avoided defeat. What Stalin needed were officers who knew what they were doing an many of the capable officers had been purged (or many of them just weren't that good). Look at the invasion of Finland for instance, there were plenty of higher ups which were quite talented and the error most certainly lay with the officers lower on the chain who knew next to nothing on what the hell they should be doing and that isn't necessarily a mistake on the part of the higher ups.

[Mayer]

The likelihood of Germany actually beating Britain in a war is as likely as Rommel actually succeeding in Africa. That is to say next to none.

Oh I wouldn't say so, the battle of the atlantic was at times close to axis success.
If Britain had been capped from sea trade, it would have starved into submission.

[Sphere]

2. war with the USA
The declaration of war against the USA while being at war with the UK and the USSR was incredible stupid and was not a necessity of the Tripartite Pact which was defensive in nature (article 3)
This can only be explained by Hitler's assessment of the USSR as being practically defeated in december 1941 and that he overestimated Japan's abilities. In fact he just viewed it as formality because F.D.R already intervened with Lend-Lease and defense of british convoys.

People tend to forget about the massive success the Germans had in the months after the declaration of war in terms of the battle of the Atlantic. By surprising an ill prepared enemy they put 600 mostly US merchants ships to the bottom of the ocean in a six month period along the US Atlantic coastline. The scramble to respond stretched an already thin US Navy, not to mention the squeeze but on shipping to the UK. The window for such a successful strike was finite as the US Navy (now at war) was only going to get larger and more prepared.

So I am not convinced Hitlers declaration of war was a folly. With FDR in charge, war between Germany and the US was inevitable. I see no clear wisdom in giving the US breathing room, and letting FDR dictate US involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic, and when to declare war. A much bigger folly in my opinion was Japan not attacking Russia.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Indeed, this is a fact! Had America not been involved Britain would have been besieged on the high seas. As it stands FDR had gotten himself involved and without greatly increasing naval production the Germans could not truly win (although I looked at Hitler's orders for after the defeat of the USSR and the increase of naval capabilities seems to be a top priority if Britain does not cease hostilities. The other major priority being an increase of the tank arm and air force and the modernization of the Wehrmacht more or less along the lines of what the Soviet army had going).

However I do not believe that this was a sustainable situation. The Americans and the much forgotten Canadians played a major role in the Atlantic and despite the early German success they could not hold it as was proven.
Had the Germans produced submarines in greater numbers, quite possibly a larger fleet for support roles as well and some air support they well might have been able to. But as it stands the Germans lacked any vital air support on the seas and their own conventional battleships were done in.
If we look at it purely between Britain and Germany, the Germans would have outproduced Britain eventually. But since it was not actually just Britain and Germany then I must say the Germans cannot win in the long term. However in Africa the Germans would certainly fail, it was a completely untenable situation which was hampered by Malta and the existence of Cunningham's fleet. Especially in the logistical sense meaning anything (most notably any movement) Rommel did down there was destined for failure. Rommel's decision to keep pushing into Egypt was the wrong decision. Kesselring's belief that Rommel should halt and that the Axis should assault Malta as a preliminary to any other movement was the right guess on his part.

I myself do not see the declaration of war as a mistake either for reasons that Sphere outlined. I think I might be in total agreement with Sphere.

[Mayer]

The Americans and the much forgotten Canadians played a major role in the Atlantic and despite the early German success they could not hold it as was proven.
Had the Germans produced submarines in greater numbers, quite possibly a larger fleet for support roles as well and some air support they well might have been able to. But as it stands the Germans lacked any vital air support on the seas and their own conventional battleships were done in.
If we look at it purely between Britain and Germany, the Germans would have outproduced Britain eventually. But since it was not actually just Britain and Germany then I must say the Germans cannot win in the long term.

I do not think that the outcome in the Atlantic was decided by quantity, although america's fast-build Liberty ships made a strong impact.
Decisive factors were technologies and intelligence, knowing where the convoy or the subs were and the ability to sink them was decisive.
Dönitz had in the later phases of the war more subs at his command than he originally calculated would be needed to blockade Britain but the technological advantage belonged to the enemy and the Type VII became ineffective. What would have changed the course of the war was if Germany had realized that the Enigma code was broken and prevented reports of submarine locations on a regular basis which gave british hunter-killers all the positions they needed and the greater usage of new technologies like the electroboat Type XXI (which was the first proper submarine because it didn't need to surface) with radar warning, the stealth rubber coat 'Alberich' as improvement for older subs, position-independent semi-auto LUT torpedo and the acoustic torpedo G7es 'Zaunkönig'.

The problem here is the USSR. Really. Germany wasn't really going to win a World War as long as Japan was pushing east as well. Somehow they'd have to cooperate and force the USSR into two fronts on their own land, but I have my doubts that Japan would ever be more than an annoyance in any realistic alternate history to them just like they were in reality

This really,the Battle of Khalkhyn Gol showed that the IJA was unprepared for an engagement with the Red Army. They could have tied up the soviet forces in the east but a invasion of Siberia in the same fashion as the german invasion in the west must fail not only by the lack of equipment and troops but the underdeveloped infrastructure in the area.

Had the Axis been able to make a battle inside Moscow itself- even if they didn't take it- the damage to the Soviet state would've been immense. Had they been able to take it, European Russia would have lain in their stomach and the resources on the other side of the Urals were underdeveloped, misdeveloped, and laying on top of tons of prisoners of questionable loyalty.

I doubt this, Napoleon took Moscow once and the city even burnt down to the ground but it really didn't matter. It's just one of the many population centers of the russian state. Most war-important industry was in the east (e.g. Magnitogorsk, the main supplier of steel in the southern Ural), Stalin build himself a bunker in Samara and there were still more than enough people to recruit.

[Diocle]

And if the Nazis hit by an odd attack of intelligence did this:

1 - The General Rommel after a short and bloody putsch erases Hitler from the German Political scene, killing after a short and quick political trial all the leadership of the Nazi Party.

2 - The new Military German Government led by Erwin Rommel, signed a peace treaty with Britain on the basis of an immediate withdrawal from the occupied France (where it's placed a new Republic aligned with the new German policy), the Eastern conquests are still an open matter, new meetings are programmed to discuss the matter, that is, the Germans are allowed to keep all their military progress on the Eastern Front ....

3 -The Germans assure a new more enlightened attitude about their racial policy.

4 - Britain keeps all its colonial possessions (Egypt included of course) as Italy keeps Lybia, Ethiopia and Somalia, Greece is safe and free (that is, it stays under traditional British influence and a limited Italian political interference) while Balkans are under German control, and Middle East is some sort of demilitarized zone under British and German influence.

5 - 1941: The war is now launched by Axis forces against Stalin with the 'political' support of Britain and USA.

6 - Japan is allowed to get anything he can lay his hands on in URSS and China ....

7 - China .... I need to think about them, but probably they are the true weak point of all this (idiotic) Political Fiction ....