Could Germany have won a war on 1 front?

motherfunker

As we all know, Hitler made some bad military decisions during WW2, probably the biggest being his decision to open a second front in the east, even though this only really became a second front with the invasion of Italy and to a greater extent the D-Day invasion, but he knew someday he would have to fight on both sides.
If he had decided to just concentrate on defending Europe with all the might of the Wehrmacht, SS, Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine could the allies ever have forced a landing anywhere in Europe and if they did manage say an airborne invasion, could they have defeated the Germans in a full on battle.
Or what if he had ignored the west altogether and concentrated his forces against the Russians. Could he have finished off the Red Army before they had time to regroup and counterattack.

My belief is that the Germans were the superior army and were only beaten by the sheer weight of materiel thrown against them. The Russians had an unlimited supply of men that they were willing to throw against the Germans, sometimes only forcing a breakthrough when the Germans weapons jammed from overfireing or they ran out of ammo.
The Allies in the west also had a seemingly unending supply of ammo, tanks, ships, planes and men that the Germans stood no chance of driving them back into the sea. Many of the battles around Normandy such as Caen, Cherbourg and St Lo show the tenacity of the German defenders and how they were only beaten back by sheer weight of artillery and tanks thrown against them, but not until they had caused devastating losses to the allied forces. Monte Casino and Marketgarden are other examples of the allies failure to defeat the Germans in a straight fight.
I think if Hitler had decided on one or the other he would have been unstopable, he could have consolidated his new position for a few years then launched his attack in the other direction and we could well be into the 60th year of the 1000 year reich.

shiibata

No expert on WWII but did i read somewhere that he had a massive army gathered to invade england early on in WWII but then went against it, waiting for the luftwaffe to rule the skies 1st.. Would say if the story is true, he should have went on ahead and invaded england as he would have far superior artillery early on and the yanks would have had no base either.
Its like the board game risk, hard to defend europe from all sides:D

silverharp

motherfunker wrote: »

My belief is that the Germans were the superior army and were only beaten by the sheer weight of materiel thrown against them. The Russians had an unlimited supply of men that they were willing to throw against the Germans, sometimes only forcing a breakthrough when the Germans weapons jammed from overfireing or they ran out of ammo.

don't confuse the battlefield with the war, a war is won in the factories as much as on the field. maybe if britain had been taken out, germany would have made peace with the US, otherwise the A-bomb clock was ticking or the US would have fought along side Russia in the East. So wondering how Germany may have won militarily is the wrong question or the answer is they would always have lost. The only situation I can see is if they had taken britain out, gone after the middle east for oil, not invaded russia and made peace with the US might they be around today.

Fratton Fred

That is a huge question, with so many what ifs.

Hitler did not open up the Western front, the allies did and although the Germans won a pretty convincing victory pushing the allies into the channel, it tied up a hell of a lot of German troops, many of whom remained defending the French coast.

If Britain and France did not declare war, then there would have been a significant number of changes.

Probably no war in North Africa freeing up Hitler’s best general and a significant number of troops, especially Italians who would have possibly overran Greece quicker and prevented them from retreating to Crete, therefore no battle of Crete. Although the Allies lost Crete, the German invaders took a hell of a kicking and made Hitler think again about airborne assaults.

No Narvik campaigns, which would have meant a much bigger German navy. Germany would have the run of the seas, preventing any supply convoys from getting to Russia, which were invaluable early in the war.
No free Polish to fight back, they would have had no base to operate from and would probably have sat out the war or been wiped out in Poland as the underground movement was there.

No Americans, I can’t see the US joining Russia (and I can’t see the Russians wanting them) and I see no reason why Hitler would have provoked them.

Would all this have meant he could have defeated Russia? Well, if he had attacked Russia earlier, there would have been no winter to contend with and a lot more fresh troops to use, so quite possibly. Would he have defeated the French and British if he hadn’t invaded Russia? Probably, It’s less of an issue though as Hitler’s plan was always east.

Carrigart Exile

shiibata wrote: »

No expert on WWII but did i read somewhere that he had a massive army gathered to invade england early on in WWII but then went against it, waiting for the luftwaffe to rule the skies 1st.. Would say if the story is true, he should have went on ahead and invaded england as he would have far superior artillery early on and the yanks would have had no base either.
Its like the board game risk, hard to defend europe from all sides:D

likewise but that is also my understanding. The RAF and the Royal navy saved Britain from invasion and Hitler could not risk his army ending up at the bottom of the English channel.

Attacking Russia was always a huge gamble, the Russian's have been attacked many times by the West and all have fallen foul of the weather and the Ural mountains.

dresden8

The big question is "What if Hitler had just gone for it in England?"

Concentrate the U-Boats, E-Boats, battleships and Luftwaffe in the channel, throw 100,000 men across and see what happened. Any initial lodgement would have spelt big trouble with the loss of forward airbases and more importantly the radar chain. Experience in the Pacific later showed how vulnerable the big capital ships are to aircraft, the English Channel could have earned the name "Iron Bottom Sound" first. The RAF and Royal Navy would have been drawn into the channel and anything could have gone wrong for them.

If he lost, what's 100,000 men? He lost that in one day in Stalingrad.

If he had lost, the Brits may have had the chance to retire from the war honourably with their empire intact and Hitler could then have had a free hand in the East.

If he had survived the political fall-out of course.

ChocolateSauce

Almost certainly. Could Britain have fended off 3 million German troops? The RAF was on the brink of defeat when Hitler called off daytime, strategic raids and switched to city bombing.

Fratton Fred

dresden8 wrote: »

The big question is "What if Hitler had just gone for it in England?"

Concentrate the U-Boats, E-Boats, battleships and Luftwaffe in the channel, throw 100,000 men across and see what happened. Any initial lodgement would have spelt big trouble with the loss of forward airbases and more importantly the radar chain. Experience in the Pacific later showed how vulnerable the big capital ships are to aircraft, the English Channel could have earned the name "Iron Bottom Sound" first. The RAF and Royal Navy would have been drawn into the channel and anything could have gone wrong for them.

That was the whole point of the battle of Britain. Hitler knew he needed an advantage againt the Royal Navy. Dunkirk had already shown how effective the Stuka could be againt warships, but it needed aircover. The only way the Germans were going to get this was by defeating the RAF.

People think that the air battle being lost would have meant invasion, Hitler still had to beat the RN but it would have been a lot easier without the RAF.

It also explains why Britain could not afford the French fleet falling into German hands, the combined German and French fleet would have strolled across the channel no problem.

dresden8

If the Luftwaffe had been fighting the RAF over the channel instead of over london the advantage would have swung to them. The paratroops would have been better wasted in England rather than in Crete.

Rockshamrover

Maybe Hitlers decision to split his army in Russia, sending half to Stalingrad and the other half to the oilfields was a big mistake. He assumed that he had already captured or beaten most of the Russian army.

Had he kept his army intact and took Moscow and the oilfields, the war could have gone on for years longer. He may not have had military victory but he could have negotiated a peace deal with the Brits and Americans.

The other mistake was his racial policy. His belief that the Russians were sub human.

In the opening weeks of the war on the eastern front, significant numbers of russians welcomed the Germans as liberators. He could possibly have used this pro German sentiment to help topple the communists from within.

TerrorFirmer

Impossible to ever say. People have a tendency to focus on the Western Front as purely allied armies on the continent - yet look at the statistics, the vast majority of German forces, especially armor, were always in the East. What really crippled the Germans in terms of failing to defeat Britain in 1940 wasn't just the landing of the Allies in June, it was their ability to wage an air offensive against Germany from 1942 onwards - this deprived Germany of up to 90% of its fuel sources by 1944, totally crippling it's ground and air forces alike, particular armor in the east and the Luftwaffe in the West.

Britain would have surrendered eventually, German industrial and manpower output far outstripped Britain, it was more a case of inferior strategy then capability in any case. With the RAF defeated the Royal Navy would have been destroyed with relative ease by the Luftwaffe, even without major intervention by the Kriegsmarine. There is absolutely a zero percent chance that in 1940 Britain could have won the war against Germany, however there is every chance that Germany could have lost the war against Russia on the same dates even without secondary fronts. Far less likely of course, but possible - Russia would never have surrendered in totality and it's such a large country and even with a far more successful campaign in 1941 the Wehrmacht never had the manpower to completely subjugate the entire region Hitler planned to hold. At best, it probably would have ended up ala the book Fatherland - Germany holding a stable line far in the Urals, but facing a never-ending war.

Fratton Fred

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

There is absolutely a zero percent chance that in 1940 Britain could have won the war against Germany, however there is every chance that Germany could have lost the war against Russia on the same dates even without secondary fronts. Far less likely of course, but possible - Russia would never have surrendered in totality and it's such a large country and even with a far more successful campaign in 1941 the Wehrmacht never had the manpower to completely subjugate the entire region Hitler planned to hold. At best, it probably would have ended up ala the book Fatherland - Germany holding a stable line far in the Urals, but facing a never-ending war.

That's right and the reason why Churchill was practically pleading with the americans to join in. Britains only chance was holding out long enough for Germany to get over stretched.

I was reading a bok on the Bombing campaigns against Portsmouth and early on, it was an accepted fact that the Germans would soon be on their way over. All the beeches were clossed, kids shipped off to Gloucester etc etc.

They were really dark days but people were generally prepared and willing to give the Germans a fight. Incidentally, one of the Fleet Air arm airfields in Gosport has recently been handed over to civilian use, but before that could be done, they had to dig up the runway and remove several very large pipe bombs, which meant the evacuation of thousands of people at certain times over several weekends. Many sites on the south coast were booby trapped so that if Gerry did ever make it over, they could be destroyed at a moments notice.

Its quite interesting to read about how people were preparing for the worst, which thankfully never came.

I have also read some books which talk about some of the black ops the british were involved in, these included things like a dead German being found in a desert in the US with a map showing how North and south America would be divided up by the Germans once they had conquered europe, just to "Encourage" the Americans into joining in the war.

Dinter

I would think the Germans would have been capable of winning on one front but that front would have to have been the West. Obviously to discuss this it must be taken as read that the Reich's enemies are only going to play a reactive role to her aggression. I sincerely doubt that the Soviets would let her expand throughout Europe without eventually preemptively invading but let's suppose they did.

I don't think the Germans could have ever expected to win in the East. In fact I'd say that even Hitler didn't think they could win in a slugging match with Soviet Russia. He expected her to collapse once he'd "kicked in the door". It's ironic that although the Russian bear certainly tottered his own psychotic Eisensatz did a pretty good job of steadying Soviet morale, especially in the territories outside Russia proper.

But in the West things could have been very different had Hitler concentrated his forces. We'll never know for sure but I think Sea Lion could have occurred successfully.

The RAF.

I'd find it hard to believe that the RAF could have managed to sustain the defence they did against a more aggressive and larger Luftwaffe. Especially when even after the Battle of Britain the average German pilot still had three years flying experience. Compare that to some RAF pilots who'd never flown anything beyond their trainers. This is indicative that even though still extraordinarily well supplied with materiel the RAF was losing its best pilots. The men who would be depended on to provide defenders with close air support in the event of an invasion.

The British Navy.

The navy was not capable of defending a beach head as naval power, even then, was a spent force. The Channel is too small to adequately disperse a naval fleet capable of stopping an aggressive invasion with ample air cover and surrounded by numerous Wolf packs. At this time submarines were in their hey day and and anti sub measures had not really moved on from WW1. The only real contribution I could see them having would be to dismount their artillery and emplace it. British prestige in their fleet would ensure that even this contribution would never occur.

The British Army.

The British Army is a tough one to speculate on. True they were swatted aside in France but surely with their homes and hearths at stake they would have fought more furiously? Still though in France they thought they were headed for ignominious capture for the duration which I would imagine would focus the mind and even then they were driven out. Also if Hitler is concentrating solely on the Western Front then the BEF is gone. Liquidated on the sands of Dunkirk. Hitler only allowed them to escape as he expected the British to sue for peace. With their professional army core vaporised there is no real British army.

Resistance.

Tbh I've read a lot about the Resistance plans. The buried caches, the death squads, boobytraps and hidden bases all sound very cloak and dagger and exciting. But lets be honest here, the last resistance movement the English had was Robin Hood and his merry men. Do they have the stomach for it when it is their non combatants being shot in reprisal. I would imagine it would depend on the manner of puppet government that was installed. If they were harsh enough you might see a resistance but if done well I doubt you would. You've only to look at the Norman invasion or later Dutch invasion under William or even the Hapsburgs that they kowtow to today to see that the English are always good at "getting on with things". Their stoicism and "blitz spirit" would go against them here.

The Colonies

With the distances involved and the motherland gone, I don't see the colonies doing anything beyond handing over a room for the exiled government to make preachy, courageous statements from.

USA

I'm thinking that the Prüfstand XII, or something similar, surfacing in the Hudson bay, with warheads either nucleur or filled with Sarin gas would have put paid to any American ambitions.

In conclusion I see Sealion succeeding but with large German casualties. However no matter what sort of a debacle the invasion was without the haemorrhaging it would have suffered on the Eastern front the Wehrmacht was capable of succeeding.

ChocolateSauce

The only way Hitler could have annexed Russia was if he exterminated the population, something I would not put past him. Had he defeated Britain and then hit Russia, he might have won.

Lockstep

Rockshamrover wrote: »

The other mistake was his racial policy. His belief that the Russians were sub human.

In the opening weeks of the war on the eastern front, significant numbers of russians welcomed the Germans as liberators. He could possibly have used this pro German sentiment to help topple the communists from within.

I'd view this as an important point.

So many people were sick of Stalin and were happy to be allowed free worship again, Hitler quickly lost the sentiment with his views on the Slavs.

Fratton Fred

Dinter wrote: »

I'd find it hard to believe that the RAF could have managed to sustain the defence they did against a more aggressive and larger Luftwaffe. Especially when even after the Battle of Britain the average German pilot still had three years flying experience. Compare that to some RAF pilots who'd never flown anything beyond their trainers. This is indicative that even though still extraordinarily well supplied with materiel the RAF was losing its best pilots. The men who would be depended on to provide defenders with close air support in the event of an invasion.

The British Navy.

The navy was not capable of defending a beach head as naval power, even then, was a spent force. The Channel is too small to adequately disperse a naval fleet capable of stopping an aggressive invasion with ample air cover and surrounded by numerous Wolf packs. At this time submarines were in their hey day and and anti sub measures had not really moved on from WW1. The only real contribution I could see them having would be to dismount their artillery and emplace it. British prestige in their fleet would ensure that even this contribution would never occur.

Resistance.

Tbh I've read a lot about the Resistance plans. The buried caches, the death squads, boobytraps and hidden bases all sound very cloak and dagger and exciting. But lets be honest here, the last resistance movement the English had was Robin Hood and his merry men. Do they have the stomach for it when it is their non combatants being shot in reprisal. I would imagine it would depend on the manner of puppet government that was installed. If they were harsh enough you might see a resistance but if done well I doubt you would. You've only to look at the Norman invasion or later Dutch invasion under William or even the Hapsburgs that they kowtow to today to see that the English are always good at "getting on with things". Their stoicism and "blitz spirit" would go against them here.

The Colonies

With the distances involved and the motherland gone, I don't see the colonies doing anything beyond handing over a room for the exiled government to make preachy, courageous statements from.

There's some good points there, a couple i would comment on.

Although the RAF had very young inexperienced pilots, they were doing exactly what you said may raise the army's ability to fight, they were defending their home. This is one story i like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Holmes

I have read a couple of articles about the plans for a resistance movement and they were pretty hopeful so I don't think their success would have ben that great. I'm not sure you can relate the British will to resist german occupation to the Norman invasion though don;t forget, it wasn;t just the british either, the french and Polish were in britain and were already resisting, the fall of Britain would have been the end of hope for them, so they would have continued the fight.

Would the colonies have helped out? well the fact they did is probably a good indicator, the canadians, Australians and Kiwis were only too willing to get involved and there were plans to move the British government and Royal Family to Canada who had already indicated its intention to carry on. How succesful that would have been, who knows. without the US probably not very.

Dinter

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'd view this as an important point.

So many people were sick of Stalin and were happy to be allowed free worship again, Hitler quickly lost the sentiment with his views on the Slavs.

It's hard to actually understand Hitler's motivations behind invading Russia.

If it was for "living room" then the Russians, Slavs etc have to be wiped out resulting in a stiffening of resistance.

If it was purely racial hatred then the same causes will create the same results.

I've read that it was for resources. Still Romania was pumping oil throughout the war and, in fact, the Germans could fire potato fuelled V2s! With technical advancements like that, I really don't see the point in invasion when they could have gone to the Middle East for what they wanted a lot easier with Britain knocked out and without the incessant bombing of their areas of manufacture.

Actually one definite result from destroying Britain early on would be that the V2 programme, which was concentrated on Britain, was estimated to have used the equivalent of the resources needed for 48, 000 tanks!!!

I'd go with a pre-emptive strike that sucked in more resourses than was originally planned for. Still doesn't make a lot of sense unless it was thought that the Germans could drive the Russians back far enough that Japan would invade as she had agreed. Then perhaps crush the Russians in the Urals.

It could also have been motivated by left over hubris after WWI, where the Germans destroyed the Russians. Perhaps they hoped for another revolution along the lines of 1917 if they removed the Soviets aura of invincibility.

Dinter

Fratton Fred wrote: »

T
Although the RAF had very young inexperienced pilots, they were doing exactly what you said may raise the army's ability to fight, they were defending their home.

Oh I definitely don't mean the RAF was a spent force. I don't doubt they'd fight and fight well. It's just the Germans are more numerous, have superlative pilots. Also the main advantage the British had in the BoB was that the German fighters were expected to dogfight on their reserves as they spent most of their fuel getting there. If they had access to forward airfields it could have been different.

The British can no longer depend on their Radar chains as a combination of Paratroop landings and the invasion proper has blown great holes in it. I would see the Luftwaffe running a conveyor belt of fighters, close support bombers from France. All it'll take is capturing an airfield or two and the Germans are in. We can see their ability to supply themselves over harsh terrain (such as bare tundra or sea) and to get an airfield up and running from scratch at both Crete and later Stalingrad.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I have read a couple of articles about the plans for a resistance movement and they were pretty hopeful so I don't think their success would have ben that great.

I really do think it'll depend on how the Germans treat the civilians. A resistance movement will definitely occur but whether it'll last is another thing.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure you can relate the British will to resist german occupation to the Norman invasion though

Nah, I know, I was just joking about Robin! However wasn't there an English Prince in talks with the Abwehr in Spain? Get him as a puppet figurehead and see if others roll in behind him. Don't forget Petain was a decorated war hero who loathed the Germans and he had no problem placing himself at the head of a puppet regime to spare French civilian casualties.

There will always be people who are ready to put aside patriotism if the blood of a hundred thousand civilians is explained as the consequences of keeping the higher moral ground. Could we have seen something along the lines of the Williamite invasion? An invasion by foreigners that was so overwhelmingly accepted that most people don't even know it occurred.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

don;t forget, it wasn;t just the british either, the french and Polish were in britain and were already resisting, the fall of Britain would have been the end of hope for them, so they would have continued the fight.

Well the French are washing up on the shores of Dunkirk amongst the wreckage of the small boat flotilla and the corpses of 200,000 Tommies.

The Polish who had made it to Britain would definitely have fought. However they are limited by the same conditions as the British. They are without an army to fight with. Britain's Army has always had a small core of highly trained soldiers that can balloon out by sprinkling the full timers through local raised levies. As Churchill said "the whole root, the core, and brain of the British Army" are stranded in Dunkirk. In this scenario they don't get back.

Without the full time core, which is gone, they are basically arming men as they clock out of work to go and face the battle trained and experienced Wehrmacht. There will undoubtedly be German reversals and bloody noses but they will not be able to stem the German tide that has already destroyed the flower of their fighting men.

In the end I think the Polish presence just means there are more people to go to Germany as Todt workers when the inevitable happens.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Would the colonies have helped out? well the fact they did is probably a good indicator, the canadians, Australians and Kiwis were only too willing to get involved and there were plans to move the British government and Royal Family to Canada who had already indicated its intention to carry on. How succesful that would have been, who knows. without the US probably not very.

Oh I don't think the Colonies would have surrendered without a clear and present threat to them. However with the distances involved could they have done anything except bristle and glower?

I don't see how, bar sending Canadians East to Russia. With Britain gone Europe is closed to outside help except those ready to come up through Africa or Asia maybe. Will Australia or NZ help in a timeframe that matters or in worthwhile numbers with the Japanese threat? It benefits them nothing and is probably going to fail. I'd love to see the recruiters selling that.