How could Germany have won wwII?

Nulty

Ok, despite all the threads assuming that Germany HAD won the war I'm asking all the History professors that use boards (I know you all do!) I'm asking how, now knowing exactly how the war was fought; knowing the genereals whos made the decisions; knowing the mentality of the citizens of all the nations involved and knowing the weaponry of the warring factions....what could germany have done to win the war.

Is there an easy step-by-step way of avoiding defeat for the Germans? What could they have done to secure their positions during the war to ensure victory? Do you know what I'm getting at?

Can you give us the keys steps of where the Germans went wrong and wjhat they could have done differently?

R.Dub.Fusilier

not a professor but one step could have been the use of long range bombers , similar to the Condor planes, to attack the russian infastructure factories etc.

mike65

Better pre war preparation, they thought Britain would not go to war with Germany. Had they guessed that correctly then they would have had an airforce suitable for sustained heavy bombing.

Artur.PL

Mistake was made when Hitler had stopped his troops on their way to Moscow and ordered them to go on the South- Guderian was furious because of that, other commanders too but Hitler said "my generals don't understand economy of war". It was second big mistake. First one was made on 22/06/41

xflyer

The answer was that they couldn't win the war with Hitler in charge. He consistently misdirected his forces. If Barbarossa had been launched on it's original date in May instead of June and went straight for Moscow before winter hit. That might have finished it. But again thanks to Hitler they never made it. If they had defeated the Soviet Union in 1942 even with America coming into the war. They could probably have held off any Allied invasion with all the spare troops they would have had.

They couldn't win the war without destroying the USSR. That was always Hitler's real intention. His destiny as he saw it.

Mahatma coat

Germany made the mistake of believing their own Bulsh1t about being superior to the people they were conquering

had they gone into the East to Liberate these people from the Soviets instead of Crushing them* they would have had hundreds of thousands of volunteers to fight russia

Also if they had been a bit more subtle about the situatio they might have made allies of the UK and the US against stalin, which was initially the German plan


also the Faffin about with the Jews cost a lot of resoursces and Manpower IMO it should have been abandoned once the Ostfront was opened, they should not have tried to implement the final solution when they did, they really should have started in 1935 when they had most of the infrastructure in place or made the decision to wait til after the War, they comitted too many resoursces to the project at a time when they didnt have them to spare


actual liberation probably not nescessary, just the perception.

scudzilla

Maybe if they hadn't tried to conquer everywhere at once they would have won, Forget Russia and Africa, take out the Brits first, then bother with the others

Denerick

Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon - invading Russia. The fact is that militarily the Nazi's weren't prepared when they invaded Poland in 1939. Had they waited a couple of years they probably could have won a war on two fronts. By 1941 they committed 3 million soldiers to the eastern front. They would have been far wiser to use those resources against Britain and knock her out of the war altogether.

If he had taken his time and then moved east, perhaps the Nazis could have succeeded against Stalin. Barbarossa was initially very succesful because they steamrollered over the Russian plains and met little resistance. However, the lack of preparation, the lack of resources, and eventually the lack of men (They were facing the allies in the west after all) began to shine through.

Another good idea would have been to not declare war on American after Pearl harbour. There is little doubt that the Americans would have left the Germans alone and concentrated on Japan. As it turns out, Hitler lost the war because he made some awful decisions.

Morlar

Not wanting to take the thread offtopic but you could probably argue that the logic was that the germans wanted the japaneesse to threaten russia so that they would be the ones fighting the war on 2 fronts, and this was one of the reasons for the alliance to begin with (which led to the german declaration of war). I am not sure how true that is or how much you can read back into it given the timescale. It is a fact that the fall of Paulus' 6th army at stalingrad was in part due to the russian intelligence on Japan which confirmed the japaneese were not going to invade - this then freed up the russian armies which were re-located to Stalingrad. So if you give them the benefit of considerable forethought it does kind of make some sense viewed in that way.

Morlar

scudzilla wrote: »

Maybe if they hadn't tried to conquer everywhere at once they would have won, Forget Russia and Africa, take out the Brits first, then bother with the others

I think they were deeply suspicious of and afraid of stalin and did not want to give him the chance to invade them at a future point when they could have been more vulnerable or when it may not have suited them even less.

The thinking of it was to beat them to the punch, and given the red army performance in invading finland (abysmal) the thinking was that russia was a 'rotted shack and if you kick the door in it will crumble to the floor' (I believe it was goebbels who came out with that quote). I think mussolini as a choice of ally was also a very costly decision but it's not that they were spolied for choice.

smcgiff

Just to second what's been said above.

Invading Russia was insane, even for the strategic oil fields it was still the wrong time to do it.

They stopped the invasion of Britain just at the time when the British were nearly defeated in the air.

If they brought the fight to Britain I think they would have had a good chance of invading Britain. Coupled to not invading Russsia at all or for a couple of years and the world would be a different place.

Likewise I don't think the US would have got involved if the UK (and eventually Ireland) were occupied by the Germans.

youcancallmeal

smcgiff wrote: »

Just to second what's been said above.

Invading Russia was insane, even for the strategic oil fields it was still the wrong time to do it.

They stopped the invasion of Britain just at the time when the British were nearly defeated in the air.

If they brought the fight to Britain I think they would have had a good chance of invading Britain. Coupled to not invading Russsia at all or for a couple of years and the world would be a different place.

Likewise I don't think the US would have got involved if the UK (and eventually Ireland) were occupied by the Germans.

I think the US would of gotten involved regardless because their fear that Germany would of developed nuclear weapons before they did.

There is so many what ifs but the one main thing that cost Germany defeat was Hitler and his ill conceived military decisions. Although would WW2 have even happened if Hitler hadnt come to power?

cdb

Denerick wrote: »

Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon - invading Russia. The fact is that militarily the Nazi's weren't prepared when they invaded Poland in 1939. Had they waited a couple of years they probably could have won a war on two fronts. By 1941 they committed 3 million soldiers to the eastern front. They would have been far wiser to use those resources against Britain and knock her out of the war altogether.

If he had taken his time and then moved east, perhaps the Nazis could have succeeded against Stalin. Barbarossa was initially very succesful because they steamrollered over the Russian plains and met little resistance. However, the lack of preparation, the lack of resources, and eventually the lack of men (They were facing the allies in the west after all) began to shine through.

Many excellent posts above but I think you nail it here as these are probably the most important reasons why Germany lost the war.

Timing was crucial on many fronts - a delay of a few years would have allowed a greater build up of forces, tanks, planes, artillery pieces etc that could have won them the war. In the case of Barbarossa - an earlier start (May was mentioned previously) or even a delay of a year would have avoided the worst effects of the severest winter in almost 40 years which allowed the Russians to retreat and regroup and ultimately stage a remarkable comeback.

Knocking Britain out would have had the double advantage of keeping the US out of the war (and avoiding the damaging bombing campaign etc) and allowing Germany to concentrate fully on a single front war in the East.

In the first instance they came much closer to achieving it than many people believe, with Hitler opting for a switch in tactics in the battle for the skies over Britain to bomb London at a point where they had almost overwhelmed Britain's air defenses. There was also the early successes in U-boat war in the Atlantic that almost crippled a country that relied heavily on imports for their survival. And as has been mentioned in both cases a four-engined bomber would have been a massive advantage but the plans for one were shelved in the thirties as they were deemed unnecessary.

There are numerous other reasons of course, the superiority in weapons and tactics the Germans enjoyed at the start of the war was eroded the longer the war went on, the decision to focus on technical superiority when mass production would have had better results, in tank production for example, the campaign in North Africa which was a waste of resources, if the numerous plots to remove Hitler had succeeded, all these things would have had a major influence on the outcome of the war if they had panned out differently.

Could the Germans have won the war -possibly yes.

TerrorFirmer

cdb wrote: »

the superiority in weapons and tactics the Germans enjoyed at the start of the war was eroded the longer the war went on, the decision to focus on technical superiority when mass production would have had better results, in tank production for example, the campaign in North Africa which was a waste of resources, if the numerous plots to remove Hitler had succeeded, all these things would have had a major influence on the outcome of the war if they had panned out differently.

The superiority was certainly there in tactics but not necessarily in hardware, at all. In fact, during the invasion of France, all the Germans has on their side was indeed tactics - in parity engagements, the Char B or Matilda was more than enough a match for the Panzer I or II, which formed the bulk of German tank strength. German Anti-Armour was also notoriously inefficient at destroying enemy tanks, even Guerdian recorded an incident where he attempted to destroy a Char B with 37mm AT and couldn't penetrate at all. Tactics won the day, pure and simple. It was the same in Russia - they had outdated tactics of assigning tanks as infantry support, and thus you had huge concentrated tank groups punching through thin lines of dispersed tanks. The T34 was a nasty surprise for the Germans but it failed to become an issue due to the incredibly poor tactical doctrine of the RA.

Big mistakes:

Failing to invade Britain. Dunkirk wasn't so much a blunder, in hindsight it is easy to say so but at the time it was a very sound tactical decision. But Britain should have been invaded, regardless of the cost. After Dunkirk, it literally had no equipment with which to fight. However gallantly the RAF or RN would have fought, once the war reached land - which it would have done after an attrition war Britain could not win - the army wouldn't have had the faintest hope.

Declaring war on the USA - an enormous blunder, for without such a declaration, the USA would have devoted itself to the pacific theater, and German industry would have been spared the utter destruction it endured. German industry actually remarkably increased for the most part during the war right up until 1945, but what crippled it was the lack of oil with which to drive the war machine it was producing for. Had the USAAF not raided the Romanian oilfields, Germany would have continued to enjoy a relatively uninterrupted flow of oil. Lack of oil was the primary reason for the demise of the Luftwaffe, failure of several major offensives, and destruction of thousands of German tanks.

Barbarrossa - a mistake in itself, but as said, had the invasion been in early spring, Russia probably would have collapsed. Even so, the major mistakes in the campaign after winter 1941 was Hitlers total control over OKW. In a world where Stalingrad, Kursk and Bagration never happened, it is simply anyones guess as to what would have happened in the east.

I'm not an expert on the Pacific theater at all, but I also often wondered why Germany and Japan couldn't have worked out a deal in 1940-1941 for a joint strike on the SU after which Japan would be guaranteed oil from the Cacasus after the inevitable defeat of the SU. Had they launched an offensive war against the USA in 1943, with the backing of a consolidated Germany, victory would be far more certain.

ART6

The problem with any attempt to invade Britain was that the Kriegsmarine never even came close to challenging the Royal Navy. In fact it's strengh was largely spent after Narvick. Even if the Luftwafe had gained air superiority it's not difficult to imagine what would happen to a large fleet of invasion barges, with air support but no naval support, when it encountered a large number of cruisers and destroyers haring down the Channel at high speed firing with everything that would go bang. Even their wash would be more than enough to sink half of the barges.

My guess would be that Germany's only hope of defeating the UK would be a siege that used the U-boat force to starve them into submission, and the then developing battle of the Atlantic suggests that even that might not have worked. The UK was importing a vast amount of its needs from the USA, and the Americans were already becoming less than neutral in dealing with U-boats that threatened their ships.

Hitler gave up on the invasion of the UK because even he could finally see that trying a modern invasion using tactics first developed by William the Conquerer wasn't going to work.

Turning his attention to Russia and leaving Britain as a growing threat on his northern border could only have been madness. Russia is a vast country, and simply far too large to be invaded by any reasonable interpretation of the word. Armies of the 20th century could no longer live off the land -- you can't simply raid a few farms and acquire a hundred tanks and a million gallons of fuel oil. To take over Russia any invader would need supply lines that stretch half way around the Northern hemisphere. The Russian climate was just another factor, and from what I can see of the history the result would have been the same whenever Hitler invaded Russia. I have spent time there on business, and never cease to be amazed at the vast distances that are even now just forest. The Russian army could simply continue to retreat eastwards until the German army ran out of steam and supplies. Stalin didn't care about the sacrifice.

TerrorFirmer

ART6 wrote: »

The problem with any attempt to invade Britain was that the Kriegsmarine never even came close to challenging the Royal Navy. In fact it's strengh was largely spent after Narvick. Even if the Luftwafe had gained air superiority it's not difficult to imagine what would happen to a large fleet of invasion barges, with air support but no naval support, when it encountered a large number of cruisers and destroyers haring down the Channel at high speed firing with everything that would go bang. Even their wash would be more than enough to sink half of the barges.

My guess would be that Germany's only hope of defeating the UK would be a siege that used the U-boat force to starve them into submission, and the then developing battle of the Atlantic suggests that even that might not have worked. The UK was importing a vast amount of its needs from the USA, and the Americans were already becoming less than neutral in dealing with U-boats that threatened their ships.

Hitler gave up on the invasion of the UK because even he could finally see that trying a modern invasion using tactics first developed by William the Conquerer wasn't going to work.

Turning his attention to Russia and leaving Britain as a growing threat on his northern border could only have been madness. Russia is a vast country, and simply far too large to be invaded by any reasonable interpretation of the word. Armies of the 20th century could no longer live off the land -- you can't simply raid a few farms and acquire a hundred tanks and a million gallons of fuel oil. To take over Russia any invader would need supply lines that stretch half way around the Northern hemisphere. The Russian climate was just another factor, and from what I can see of the history the result would have been the same whenever Hitler invaded Russia. I have spent time there on business, and never cease to be amazed at the vast distances that are even now just forest. The Russian army could simply continue to retreat eastwards until the German army ran out of steam and supplies. Stalin didn't care about the sacrifice.

A good reply but none of it is really true - just being factual, not attacking your post.

The Kreigsmarine didn't need to challenge the Royal Navy. They needed the Luftwaffe to sink the Royal Navy, or at least deal it enough damage that the Kriegsmarine, which was formidable, could mop up the rest of the fleet. The Luftwaffe, had Hitler really set his mind to invading the UK, would have gained complete aerial superiority, probably by late 1940 or early 1941. The RAF never defeated the Luftwaffe, it merely tired it to the extent that Hitler grew impatient. German manpower, resources, material and industry was far better than that of Britain. It would have only been a matter of time, regardless of how gallantly they fought, before the RAF would have ceased to exist. The Luftwaffe committed thousands of planes to Barbarossa.

The Royal Navy would have been a sitting duck without aerial cover. An offensive seaborne fleet without aerial cover would have been utterly suicidal and ripped apart by dive bombers. Look at the pacific campaign, where aerial strength was the decisive factor in every single major encounter, the lack of which lead to crippling defeats for Japan. The Luftwaffe would have been flying clockwork from bases in Northern France, and in tandem with the Kriegsmarine.....there wouldn't have been a hope of the Royal Navy preventing a landing to be honest. Which is why the Battle of Britain was so important. Both sides knew it was the difference between victory and defeat. It's not true to say that Hitler gave up because he realised an invasion would not work. On the contrary, if Hitler was genuinely passionate about conquering Britain, Germany would have done so easily, irregardless of the difficulties they faced in Radar and ineffective fighter direction. Hitler never really wanted to invade England however, and for him it was merely an inconvenience blocking the rest of his European crusade. The drawn out air campaign made him impatient until he eventually opted to pursue his war in Russia, his true passion, and leave Britain lingering.

After Dunkirk the Army had a crippling shortage in arms, equipment and Armour. the resources were not there to effectively defend the entire coastline in depth, let alone the entire country. If the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe were pounding the Royal Navy in the channel, it wouldn't be difficult for even an advance party of several thousand men on a combination of motor boats and barges to land on the coast and establish bridgeheads with the help of uncontested air support until further reinforcements arrived.

As for Russia, neither is it true to say that armies of the 20th century could not live off the land - in fact, rather the opposite, it was a Wehrmacht directive to live off the land, stripping entire villages of food and livestock for the army, often destroying them as it went. They didn't rely on imported foodstuff in general.

Without the USA the United Kingdom was never a growing threat, and never really would have been. Even with the bulk of their forces in the East, the Western German forces would have been more than a match for the UK in terms of aerial or land power. Only in late 1943 and early 1944 did the tide of aerial power turn decisively against Germany, and that was entirely because of the USAAF. Not belittling the contribution of the UK, but Germanys air defense network and night fighter capability was enough to provide massive headaches for the RAF and USAAF for years, let alone the RAF on its lonesome. On land, the UK simply did not have the manpower or equipment to return to the continent, unless, of course, they had done so in 1945, when defeat in the east was inevitable and so would have made little difference anyway.

ART6

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

A good reply but none of it is really true - just being factual, not attacking your post.

The Kreigsmarine didn't need to challenge the Royal Navy. They needed the Luftwaffe to sink the Royal Navy, or at least deal it enough damage that the Kriegsmarine, which was formidable, could mop up the rest of the fleet. The Luftwaffe, had Hitler really set his mind to invading the UK, would have gained complete aerial superiority, probably by late 1940 or early 1941. The RAF never defeated the Luftwaffe, it merely tired it to the extent that Hitler grew impatient. German manpower, resources, material and industry was far better than that of Britain. It would have only been a matter of time, regardless of how gallantly they fought, before the RAF would have ceased to exist. The Luftwaffe committed thousands of planes to Barbarossa.

The Royal Navy would have been a sitting duck without aerial cover. An offensive seaborne fleet without aerial cover would have been utterly suicidal and ripped apart by dive bombers. Look at the pacific campaign, where aerial strength was the decisive factor in every single major encounter, the lack of which lead to crippling defeats for Japan. The Luftwaffe would have been flying clockwork from bases in Northern France, and in tandem with the Kriegsmarine.....there wouldn't have been a hope of the Royal Navy preventing a landing to be honest. Which is why the Battle of Britain was so important. Both sides knew it was the difference between victory and defeat. It's not true to say that Hitler gave up because he realised an invasion would not work. On the contrary, if Hitler was genuinely passionate about conquering Britain, Germany would have done so easily, irregardless of the difficulties they faced in Radar and ineffective fighter direction. Hitler never really wanted to invade England however, and for him it was merely an inconvenience blocking the rest of his European crusade. The drawn out air campaign made him impatient until he eventually opted to pursue his war in Russia, his true passion, and leave Britain lingering.

After Dunkirk the Army had a crippling shortage in arms, equipment and Armour. the resources were not there to effectively defend the entire coastline in depth, let alone the entire country. If the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe were pounding the Royal Navy in the channel, it wouldn't be difficult for even an advance party of several thousand men on a combination of motor boats and barges to land on the coast and establish bridgeheads with the help of uncontested air support until further reinforcements arrived.

As for Russia, neither is it true to say that armies of the 20th century could not live off the land - in fact, rather the opposite, it was a Wehrmacht directive to live off the land, stripping entire villages of food and livestock for the army, often destroying them as it went. They didn't rely on imported foodstuff in general.

Without the USA the United Kingdom was never a growing threat, and never really would have been. Even with the bulk of their forces in the East, the Western German forces would have been more than a match for the UK in terms of aerial or land power. Only in late 1943 and early 1944 did the tide of aerial power turn decisively against Germany, and that was entirely because of the USAAF. Not belittling the contribution of the UK, but Germanys air defense network and night fighter capability was enough to provide massive headaches for the RAF and USAAF for years, let alone the RAF on its lonesome. On land, the UK simply did not have the manpower or equipment to return to the continent, unless, of course, they had done so in 1945, when defeat in the east was inevitable and so would have made little difference anyway.

Also a good reply and an alternative view that I wouldn't dispute. There are many ways of interpreting history in terms of what could have happened.

However, the point that I was making about invasion barges was that the UK, in a desperate position if Germany had achieved air power and had launched the barges, would I am sure have thrown everything it had at them and to hell with the consequences. It would be either that or surrender, and Chuchill was not about to do that. Neither, I suspect, wre the majority of the Brits.

On the subject of the Wermacht living off the land in Russia, my point was that there is more to living off the land than food for a modern, highly mechanised army. There is fuel, ammunition, clothing, machines, spare parts, replacements for damaged or lost tanks and field artilliary, even down to such things as spark plugs. Not readily available from farms and villages I suspect.

Jeboa Safari

Declaring war on America and Russia at the same time were his biggest mistakes in my opinion. I think he should have concentrated on Britain first and knocked them out. Then Russia, and if possible get Japan to declare war, or at least threaten it with the Russians.

Ping Chow Chi

I think that the only way Germany could have won WW2 is if they had made a proper ally with France or Britain or America.

I agree that if they had focused more on attacking Britain that they probably could have knocked it out of the war, but I think that the resources and effort to do that would have left them vulnerable to the Russians. One of the big reasons for the early gains that Germany made in the east was due that Stalin didn't believe that Germany would risk a fight on two fronts. If Germany had knocked taken Britain out, that advantage would have been lost.

Which poses the question, if Britain would have been invaded, would Russia have sat there and waited for her turn, or would she have attacked from the east?

Now if Germany had made an ally of France (not likely I know) but then I doubt Britian would have declared war when it invaded Poland, and without having to worry about it's western flank it could have just carried on and attacked Russia and it's satellites 1939. Plus you would have the help of the entire French surface fleet to help help strangle Britain in to submission.

HavingCrack

Hitler never actually wanted to fight Britain and France-his entire strategy was ultimately the invasion of Poland and the Soviet Union to achieve 'Lebensraum'. He always intended invading Russia so its pointless to say he shouldn't have done it.

A theory I've always had is if the Germans simply ignored the British and French declarations of war and did not invade the Low Countries and France in 1940 and simply posted enough troops to prevent an Allied invasion of western Germany they could have won. Instead of invading France they launch Barbarossa in April 1940 before the Soviet army is any ready for warfare and advance to capture Moscow, Leningrad and the Caucasus by October 1940. The western allies realise they have nothing to gain by continuing the 'Phony War' and sign a peace treaty with Hitler. USA never becomes involved in European theatre as a result. Guerilla warfare continues in the USSR throughout 1941-1943 but ultimately the Russian are not capable of physically ousting the Germans in open warfare leading to a scenario similar to that portrayed in 'Fatherland'.

Denerick wrote: »

Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon - invading Russia. The fact is that militarily the Nazi's weren't prepared when they invaded Poland in 1939. Had they waited a couple of years they probably could have won a war on two fronts. By 1941 they committed 3 million soldiers to the eastern front. They would have been far wiser to use those resources against Britain and knock her out of the war altogether.

If he had taken his time and then moved east, perhaps the Nazis could have succeeded against Stalin. Barbarossa was initially very succesful because they steamrollered over the Russian plains and met little resistance. However, the lack of preparation, the lack of resources, and eventually the lack of men (They were facing the allies in the west after all) began to shine through.

Another good idea would have been to not declare war on American after Pearl harbour. There is little doubt that the Americans would have left the Germans alone and concentrated on Japan. As it turns out, Hitler lost the war because he made some awful decisions.

The latest the German army could have gone to war with the USSR was 1944 because by this stage the Soviet buildup of its forces would have been completed so 'taking their time' wasn't really an option.

macraignil

From what I have read the german weapons developers were told to plan for a war years after it actually broke out. The weapons they were using were not ready to deal with the war as it unfolded.
At the start of the war the Focke Wulf 190 was in development and if this fighter plane and it's fighter/bomber versions were in production at the start of the war the spitfire would not have been as celebrated today. There was a version built that could have carried a torpedo and would have had a dramatic impact on the maritime theatre of the war.
At sea the Germans wasted resources developing "pocket" battleships and heavy cruisers, when they could not expect to challenge the royal navy with surface ships. Perhaps they would have been better off focusing their efforts on the U-boat fleet which was still smaller than that of the French at the outbreak of war.
On land the production of the Panzer IV was behind what was required and from what was said in Heinz Guderian's book "Panzer Leader" the production of many of these tanks without the higher velocity 75mm guns was an administrative error. The shared development of tanks with Russia in the pre war years could also be viewed as a mistake as at the start of the conflict the Russians had the most effective tank in the T34.
It was Guderian's opinion that after invading France, and not accepting the peace that created Vichy France, Germany should have invaded North Africa. Maybe there german engineers might have found some of the oil that has since been exploited to fuel further expansion of the laebens raum that Hitler desired.
In any case at the onset of war Hitler was aware that the Russians had over 10,000 tanks compared to the approximately 3000 fielded by the Germans. It is my opinion that Hitler was aware that invading Russia would not succeed and was happy that even if his administration would come to an end he would be content in killing more Russians than anybody else had before him. If you would count Hitler as representing all of Germany then maybe they did win because of the numbers of their enemy that they killed.