In this kind of scenario where they weren't on the offensive against Russia they'd have been in a better position to defend and build infrastructure for R&D into nuclear weapons and in a better position to divert resources to that end and likely would have been a long way down the road ahead of the US instead of as it turned out having a fairly superficial nuclear weapon program that was further stalled from any potential breakthroughs by the actions against facilities in Norway, etc.
Could Germany have won WW2?
- Thread starter nightrider1470
- Start date
In this kind of scenario where they weren't on the offensive against Russia they'd have been in a better position to defend and build infrastructure for R&D into nuclear weapons and in a better position to divert resources to that end and likely would have been a long way down the road ahead of the US instead of as it turned out having a fairly superficial nuclear weapon program that was further stalled from any potential breakthroughs by the actions against facilities in Norway, etc.
Germany needed to invade Russia for their oil, Germany was resourses poor and ended up making oil from coal which is a poor substitute. In the end they couldn't maintain their arms manufacturing with the resources left so they were doomed once they failed with the Russian invasion.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 1,777
Yes. They lost because the corporal in charge didn't deploy the sarin gas, go ahead with Operation Seelowe or give Heinz Guderian and von Manstein free reign on the Eastern Front.
Short answer, no.
The Battle of Britain was a huge turning point during the war after Hitlers failed Operation Sea Lion. The RAF had already defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain with no help from the US Air Force, although we did get help from some of their men son the Eagle Squadrons who shamed their government by having nothing to do with neutrality. Germans couldn’t get air superiority over Britain so they abandoned any attempt to invade. RAF bombers took the fight to the heart of Germany instead. Britain also had the world’s largest Navy at the time and, despite the deadly U-boat threat, was dominant in the Atlantic.
The RAF's heroic holdout in the Battle of Britain is proof that the Brits were determined to see the thing through. Every last man would have died rather than surrender at 900 year empire to a 10 year old upstart Reich
To sum up, neither the Soviets nor the British were going to give up. Any observer would have said, in April 1940, that Great Britain was going to fall and Operation Sea Lion was going to be a success. He would have been wrong on both counts. The only problem facing both British and Russians was $$$. A crucial part of Lend-Lease was that the Russians and the British were allowed to wait until after the war to pay it off.
Plus many many other factors.
In the end the Red Army were unstoppable anyway and USSR were the real winners.
The Battle of Britain was a huge turning point during the war after Hitlers failed Operation Sea Lion. The RAF had already defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain with no help from the US Air Force, although we did get help from some of their men son the Eagle Squadrons who shamed their government by having nothing to do with neutrality. Germans couldn’t get air superiority over Britain so they abandoned any attempt to invade. RAF bombers took the fight to the heart of Germany instead. Britain also had the world’s largest Navy at the time and, despite the deadly U-boat threat, was dominant in the Atlantic.
The RAF's heroic holdout in the Battle of Britain is proof that the Brits were determined to see the thing through. Every last man would have died rather than surrender at 900 year empire to a 10 year old upstart Reich
To sum up, neither the Soviets nor the British were going to give up. Any observer would have said, in April 1940, that Great Britain was going to fall and Operation Sea Lion was going to be a success. He would have been wrong on both counts. The only problem facing both British and Russians was $$$. A crucial part of Lend-Lease was that the Russians and the British were allowed to wait until after the war to pay it off.
Plus many many other factors.
In the end the Red Army were unstoppable anyway and USSR were the real winners.
There are a lot of theories as to why Germany ‘won the peace’…
Demilitarisation, combined with the writing-off of a lot of reconstruction debt, allowed Germany to invest in manufacturing and industry while the likes of the UK were still paying off huge loans from during and after the war. Germany paid off its debts in 1971, the UK in 2006…
Also, the UK had an empire to fund, albeit a shrinking one following the end of WW2. This stretched the UK financially and slowed our recovery.
Rationing ended in Germany in 1950 but not until 1954 in the UK, in part due to food supplied to Germany by the USA that we didn’t get.
This was because, with the Cold War, West Germany became the front-line against the USSR. The USA couldn’t risk a weak West Germany falling to the Communists and so invested heavily.
Germany suffered economically after the fall of the USSR – the reunification of East and West Germany caused all sorts of imbalances in wages, productivity and growth.
However, changing the currency to the Euro helped massively. The weaker economies of Southern Europe artificially devalued Germany’s exports, making it more affordable for other countries to import German goods. This is one of the reasons why Germany is one of the only countries in the world without a trade defecit to China.
When you hear about the Rust Belt in the USA, or UK manufacturing, declining thanks to globalisation, but specifically thanks to China, look to Germany to see that it doesn’t have to be that way.
It still astonishes me that a country so civilised as Germany could allow itself to do the things it did. I know ‘why’ it all happened but literally, how could the populace even countenance such atrocities, brutal invasions, mass slaughter and destruction of its fellow human beings? How?
I cannot for one moment think either myself or anyone I know for that matter would ever think they were doing the right thing and yet, they did. Hitler must have been one hell of a brain washer.
I cannot for one moment think either myself or anyone I know for that matter would ever think they were doing the right thing and yet, they did. Hitler must have been one hell of a brain washer.
Thanks, very interesting information there. Nice to read.
And here I am planning to leave the UK next year, learning German and move there for career reasons lol.
No worries.Thanks, very interesting information there. Nice to read.
And here I am planning to leave the UK next year, learning German and move there for career reasons lol.
My wife is German so I have a keen interest in the country (although I always was a bit of a WW2 geek).
Good luck with the language, I can understand quite a bit but can’t speak much.
It’s a great country, where are you planning on moving to?
sorry?
It is because Europeans have been priced out of breeding, the capitalist Ponzi scheme that is western society will collapse without fresh people hence the flood gates being smashed. With the added benefit of diluting any existing loyalty to any notion of sovereign nationhood or culture.
No worries.
My wife is German so I have a keen interest in the country (although I always was a bit of a WW2 geek).
Good luck with the language, I can understand quite a bit but can’t speak much.
It’s a great country, where are you planning on moving to?
Not sure yet, depends on where the IT sector is booming over there. Its a choice between Germany and Switzerland, both great countries but I find Germany cheaper to stay compared to Switzerland.
Soldato
Germany should have finished off North Africa and secured it all the way to the middle east. Closing off the Mediterranean from the British. This would have also opened up the underbelly of Russia via Persia. Unfortunately this would have given Russia even more time to build up and modernise. So you cant win either way on this front.
Verses the British Isles, they had NO WAY to bring in an amphibious landing, or supply any troops that did land, So the only way would have been to constantly flatten the airfields and aircraft production facilities. Unfortunately they started bombing the Cities instead. Losing them this front as well. However with the Mediterranean closed off by securing Africa the shipping needed to supply the UK would have had to go the long way around, and the Uboat force operating in seas without enemy air support would have had much easier times.
Loads of If and Buts
Verses the British Isles, they had NO WAY to bring in an amphibious landing, or supply any troops that did land, So the only way would have been to constantly flatten the airfields and aircraft production facilities. Unfortunately they started bombing the Cities instead. Losing them this front as well. However with the Mediterranean closed off by securing Africa the shipping needed to supply the UK would have had to go the long way around, and the Uboat force operating in seas without enemy air support would have had much easier times.
Loads of If and Buts
Classic case of no one doing anything until it was too late combined with better ability to distort things like that due to no internet, etc.
Some would, at least initially, believe they were doing the right thing for the greater good and once a totalitarian party takes hold people tend to play along at face value so they don't get singled out and made an example of, etc.
Soldato
One of the main reasons the Germans took Europe so easily and so fast was because most of Europe had a vast and integrated railway system, as did Germany itself. It was very easy to move huge numbers of troops and armour large distances very quickly.
Russia had no such system and what little it did have was a different gauge to the rest of Europe. The whole way in which the German army fought was based around railway supply and movement. The invasion of Russia was doomed from the start because troops and armour had to moved the old fashioned way, by road, which is slow and easily open to attack.
Germany was never going to take Russia even if they had the oil to start with because they simply did not have enough troops to keep throwing at the eastern front. Had Russia had an integrated railway system the Germans would almost certainly have made much faster progress, with a minimal loss of troops and armour......................the outcome may well have been different then.
He was one hell of a good motivational speaker. Shame he used it for evil "gift of the gabb" sort of thing.
With that power he played on peoples fears and that's exactly what he had done to get people on his side. Similar to Nigel Farage.
- Joined
- 25 May 2011
- Posts
- 3,299
Interesting
Caporegime
Yes, Germany could have won WWII.
* Hitler should have trusted Stalin; there was no need for Germany to fight Russia
* Air force should have been more diversified; the Luftwaffe were superb, but they were too specialised to do all the work required of them
* Jewish scientists should have been retained, not forced out
* Germany fought on too many fronts; entering Russia, Africa, and the Middle East were all bad ideas
* Hitler should have given his generals more control, instead of forcing his poor strategies on them
* Rommel needed more support in Africa; Hitler denied it because he was jealous of Rommel and did not trust him
That's just off the top of my head.
* Hitler should have trusted Stalin; there was no need for Germany to fight Russia
* Air force should have been more diversified; the Luftwaffe were superb, but they were too specialised to do all the work required of them
* Jewish scientists should have been retained, not forced out
* Germany fought on too many fronts; entering Russia, Africa, and the Middle East were all bad ideas
* Hitler should have given his generals more control, instead of forcing his poor strategies on them
* Rommel needed more support in Africa; Hitler denied it because he was jealous of Rommel and did not trust him
That's just off the top of my head.
Soldato
Another interesting angle to me is whether a triumphant Germany could have survived politically as it was. If Germany had beaten the UK to the point it dropped out, reached a treaty with Russia and held onto the parts it had occupied... What would have happened internally? How viable is Fascism as a long-term political system. The Nazis did a LOT of wealth redistribution and state interference in industry. (One reason I hate those people who go around saying "just because the Nazis called themselves socialist, doesn't mean they were" as if you're an idiot. Well no, they had a tonne of Left wing and Socialist policies...). As a paid up Capitalist, my reflex is to think that the Third Reich would have begun to collapse internally, but that's just political prejudice. Ultimately every political system collapses - the question is how long. Would we be looking at an existing, Fascist Germany and France today? Or would it have collapsed alongside Communism in the Nineties? Nazi government was corporatist (which the same people who insist the Nazis were Right Wing always seem to think means rule by corporations, as well 
). That doesn't to me seem like an effective system. But it can't be denied that Hitler's Germany was a powerhouse for a time.
). That doesn't to me seem like an effective system. But it can't be denied that Hitler's Germany was a powerhouse for a time.
Caporegime
No, they had a lot of fascist and nationalist policies. There was nothing 'left wing' or 'socialist' about them. Nazi Germany was capitalist to the core.