nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How could Hitler have won WW2?

Samsonsmasher

There is no possible scenario where Hitler would not have gone to war against the Allies or specifically avoided war with the Soviet Union but it was not inevitable that he would have lost although Hitler's ideology could not leave any possibility of surrendering to the Allies on any terms once war began. He saw everything in absolute terms - he had either to win or he would fight on to the bitter end and suicide.

The moment after which Hitler could not win was when Churchill became PM after a meeting between himself Lord Halifax who counselled peace and the King who was sympathetic. Had Churchill deferred to Halifax having failed to win support. Churchill was quite prepared to fight on believing America would intervene in Europe as they did in 1917 and was prepared to sacrifice the empire in the process. Halifax was prepared to make peace with Hitler in return for retaining British interests just as the defeated French had whose armies continued to garrison their far flung colonies after the fall of Paris in 1940.

Hitler sought to be the master of Europe in order that he could grab living space in Soviet Russia as far as the Urals. He was under no illusions that he would be at war with the United States but gambled that the Soviet Union would collapse before the end of 1941. He had to believe this of course because Nazi Germany faced an acute fuel crisis.

Hitler had to seize the Caucasus oil fields by 1941-42 or not only future military operations would jeopardized but the Reich economy itself. Hitler had to grab Moscow and the Caucasus the first year or the Soviets would be in a position to mobilize it's full resources to stop and roll back invasion which is in fact what happened.

The major speedbump was the British resistance in the Balkans and Greece in 1941 and the Mediterranean that threatened the southern flank of Hitler's Europe. Those vital months which saw a desperate hopeless rearguard by the British actually delayed and hampered Barbarossa.

Hitler's forward reconnaissance units could actually see the spires of Moscow's St Basil's cathedral through their field glasses before they were forced to retreat.

The Japanese hit many of the American battleships at Pearl Harbour but did not hit the carriers which were at sea. In any case once America mobilized they produced thousands of ships which overwhelmed the Japanese.
Hitler knew FDR favoured a Europe First war policy so with the Soviet victory in the Battle of Moscow he knew war was coming with the United States and was prepared to go down fighting.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

beauf

Larbre34 wrote: »

...As we know, they were a hairs breath away from prevailing in the Battle of Britain and could certainly have undertaken a successful amphibious assault. ...

I don't think that entirely true. Even if they had destroyed the RAF bases in the south they could have simply moved to the midlands, and as many airbases were Grass they could have been rebuilt easily. UK kept a lot of strength in reserve in the midlands and in the north. They ended the battle stronger than when they started.

...Fighter Command ended the battle stronger than when it began, with about 40% more operational pilots, and more aircraft. The Luftwaffe meanwhile emerged battered and depleted, having lost 30% of its operational strength....

Even if Germany had defeated the RAF they didn't have the resources to cross the channel, by sea or by air. That said the battle had big impact other than the numbers. It shifted American opinion. Raised the stiffening the moral and resolve to fight one, and others to join their fight.

Apiarist

As many have pointed out, even in this thread, Hitler might have had a chance to win WW2 if he was not Hitler.

For example, the scenario Stalin had feared was a united imperialist front against the Soviet Union. Could have that happened? Sure, imagine Hitler declaring peace with Britain and France (subject to France paying "reparations") after France's collapse in 1940 and announcing a crusade against Bolshevism. No submarine warfare against British shipping, and active appeasement of those sections of the US society who were most against USSR. Then Hitler could have coordinated with Japanese to crush the Soviet Union; without the Lend Lease and facing a war from West and East, the USSR would probably fall. After digesting the USSR, the Reich then could have "liberated" India and the arab world from the clutches of British and French imperialists.

Larbre34

He could've maybe fought it to a standstill and divvied up a treaty for expanded borders with the Soviets, but he would've had to listen to his strategists more than he actually did.

He should've halted at the soviet border, albeit threateningly, then focussed on the invasion of Britain. As we know, they were a hairs breath away from prevailing in the Battle of Britain and could certainly have undertaken a successful amphibious assault.

In the end though, perhaps after a new conflict following an armistice, the sheer force of numbers and resources of their enemies would've beaten the Third Reich. What won World War 2 was American factories and steel and oil and the ability to keep endlessly deploying new tanks and planes and ships into the fight.

Its likely a long term Third Reich occupation of central Europe AND an occupation of Great Britain would've been completely unmanageable anyway, too much land and population to supervise, it would never have been without resistance and external probing by America.

Also, had it been necessary, the Atom bomb would've been dropped on German cities until they got around to Berlin and decapitated the Reich. Even something as unbalancing as a Nazi-Soviet alliance or continued non-aggression pact wouldn't have withstood an atomic assault.

And thats the key point, the tactics and weapons that defeated the Axis would've done so eventually, maybe in a different order, on a different timetable, with different long term consequences - but, so long as nobody could lay a glove on the continental USA, the Axis could not have won I believe.

E mac

How much of an asset were Italy to Germany? Again I think Hitler put too much faith in an Italian army which was low on modern mechanisation and still relied on the humble horse. Fair enough Italy took control in Greece /Mediterranean but it was fleeting. Japan was too far away to be of any help to Germany in Europe if say geographically Japan was an island in Europe then god help us...

beauf

E mac wrote: »

Didn't Hitler initially think Britain as potential allies? He was sure that they wouldn't intervene when Germany invaded Poland. He saw Britains specifically English people as part of the Aryan Germanic master race...

Yes. Another one of Hitler's miscalculations.

beauf

saabsaab wrote: »

With Europe and much of the productive USSR under his control at one point Germany had vast resources available but wasnt able to properly use them.

It's not simply about raw materials. Take the battle of Britain. Germany couldn't replace the pilots and crews it lost as they crashed or bailed out over Britain. The allies pilots could get back in to the fight.

Same with planes even if they made it down to the ground they were lost. Whereas Britain had rapid repair facilities organised.

Once the fight moved over to Europe and Germany the allies could still replace heavy losses.

Same with equipment Germany equipment was over engineered complex and difficult to repair. Allied stuff was robust and simple to repair. Russian stuff even more so.

Germany also used a lot of slave labour and transport lines though occupied countries. Lots of sabotage etc. Even in things like armour the quality of the German metal degraded though the war.

Towards the end of the war German pilots had very little training compared to the allied pilots. Ok some Germans were very experienced but they would be replaced with raw rookie pilots if lost.

All those things and others combined were just too much.

E mac

Didn't Hitler initially think Britain as potential allies? He was sure that they wouldn't intervene when Germany invaded Poland. He saw Britains specifically English people as part of the Aryan Germanic master race...

beauf

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

....
The Me262 should in large quantities have been a war winning weapon .

Air forces are not solely made of fighters. Arguably the 262 is bomber destroyer rather than a air superiority fighter, as it's guns have limited ammo and slow rate of fire. It also has unreliable engines, and many were lost for that reason alone. If you losing an engine or power didn't make you crash, it made you easy prey for allied fighters.

saabsaab

beauf wrote: »

Unfortunately neither was useful for defeating a land army, that's was overrunning your bases and factories. Neither allowed you to stop the allies war production. Germany had no strategic weapons like heavy bombers. The jets were unreliable and vulnerable landing, and taking off, and on the ground and at slow speed in the air. Around 100 were shot down in the air.

Germany (Hitler) simply over extended itself. His increasing interference caused catastrophic errors. For example He wanted to use the 262 as a bomber originally. Being rash and unpredictable and the sucker punch only gets you so far.

Eventually you will be ground down by an opponent with more resources.

With Europe and much of the productive USSR under his control at one point Germany had vast resources available but wasnt able to properly use them.

Samsonsmasher

beauf wrote: »

Unfortunately neither was useful for defeating a land army, that's was overrunning your bases and factories. Neither allowed you to stop the allies war production. Germany had no strategic weapons like heavy bombers. The jets were unreliable and vulnerable landing, and taking off, and on the ground and at slow speed in the air. Around 100 were shot down in the air.

Germany (Hitler) simply over extended itself. His increasing interference caused catastrophic errors. For example He wanted to use the 262 as a bomber originally. Being rash and unpredictable and the sucker punch only gets you so far.

Eventually you will be ground down by an opponent with more resources.

Nazi Germany faced a fuel crisis in 1941-1942 which is why the offensive in the Caucasus was win or lose and was only able to produce synthetic fuel in limited quantities in the final years of the war grounding its air force and curtailing offensive ground combat operations.
The Me262 should in large quantities have been a war winning weapon but without fuel it couldn't fly enough.
Also Germany had an acute manpower crisis after its defeats in the East so Luftwaffe personnel increasingly fought as infantry toward the end of the war.
Germany produced too few weapons in enough quantities like the Me262, the Tiger 2 tank, the MP44 and others to outdo the Allies.
In 1941 during the invasion of Russia the German Army marched on foot and on horseback.
Once the Americans and Soviets were mobilized the Wehrmacht were ultimately overwhelmed by numbers of guns tanks and troops they had to face althought the Nazis consistently had a better espirit de corps.

Samsonsmasher

magicbastarder wrote: »

Isn't there an argument that if Hitler had not hated the Jews, he'd have had the Bomb first because multiple Jewish physicists wouldn't have fled?

Nuclear physics was dismissed as "Jewish physics" by the Nazis. A militaristic dictator who was not antisemitic who might have seized power in an alternative timeline would of course have used Jewish scientists who were enthusiatically German nationalists prior to Hitler's rise to power.

beauf

JJayoo wrote: »

They developed a jet powered plane and a missile that was capable of hitting the UK, if these had been developed at the beginning of the war, and not the end, they would have taken dominated any aerial fighting.

Unfortunately neither was useful for defeating a land army, that's was overrunning your bases and factories. Neither allowed you to stop the allies war production. Germany had no strategic weapons like heavy bombers. The jets were unreliable and vulnerable landing, and taking off, and on the ground and at slow speed in the air. Around 100 were shot down in the air.

Germany (Hitler) simply over extended itself. His increasing interference caused catastrophic errors. For example He wanted to use the 262 as a bomber originally. Being rash and unpredictable and the sucker punch only gets you so far.

Eventually you will be ground down by an opponent with more resources.

beauf

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's an argument, but I'm not sure how strong it is. Hitler wasn't terribly interested developing atomic weapons; the German programme started late and was seriously under-resourced because Hitler gave it a low priority. So even if European Jewish physicists had remained in Europe and were available to the support the programme, he might not have made use of them.

The bigger difference would have been on the other side; Teller, etc, would not have been available to the US atomic programme. But it would still probably have been a bigger, earlier and better-resourced programme than anything the Germans were doing.

I could be wrong but I think the Manhattan project was one of the most expensive of the war. B29 was another.

So when you consider resources that's also a critical factor.

V8 Interceptor

magicbastarder wrote: »

am i the only one for whom this plays in my head in a jeremy clarkson voice?

Classic! :pac:

paul71

Del2005 wrote: »

JJayoo wrote: »

The British did develop a jet during the war, look up Frank Whittle. It was a more complex design so wasn't flyable during the early war, they where used to hunt down V1s later on in the war.

Sorry Del I did not see your reply to the earlier poster and I repeated your point.

paul71

JJayoo wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah, but conversely if the British had developed jet aircvraft earlier than they did, the war might have take a different and shorter course.
]

But the nazis did develope jet Aircraft during the war, the British didn't I do t really see your point.

What? The British did develop jet during the war. The Gloster Meteor first flew in 1943 and saw combat in 1944 and 1945.

The Americans and the Japanese also had jet technology during the war and Lockheed P-80 entered service before the end of the war but saw no combat.

The jet engine was invented in Britain by Frank Whittle in 1930.

Samsonsmasher

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Ah the man from Del Monte! Yes I thought I'd posted a reply but must've hit something. I'll try again.

I'm not so sure about that Sir. The Fuhrer had no intention of fighting what became the western Allies. He was only looking east.

It was Prime Minister Churchill who wanted to fight no matter what.

Hitler didn't want to and wanted to avoid it. He gambled that the Western Allies would roll over when he and Stalin invaded Poland. British and France could do little and did practically nothing about Poland during the phoney war period. After the Fall of France as Max Hastings argues if Hitler had not gone ahead with a direct attack on Britain but instead concentrated on defeating the Allies in North Africa and the Mediterranean Churchill's belicose rhetoric might not have won the British people over. Without the Battle of Britain the stubborn resistance of the British might not have been stoked enough. Hitler's believed in aggression so he did not hold back. If anyone else but Churchill was leader Britain would have thrown in the towel even before that.

1874

The conflict with the Soviets was always on the cards, Stalin knew that and so did Hitler, Hitler sought it. I think the Soviet view was to hope/let the western democracies slug it out with Germany, with the outcome of weakening all, so the Communist International could take hold in Europe at least. Some in the Soviet Union knew an attack was coming when it started and likely knew it would have come at some point if Barbarossa had not started when it did. Stalin did buy time and had the Germans taken such an approach themselves or had they been able to, they may have come out on top.

If the Germans took a more defensive approach to fend off any Soviet pre-emptive strike in Eastern Europe and dealt with Great Britain in the way and numbers they had put into Barbarossa, while not as straightforward they may very likely have knocked them out of any prolonged war, this would have meant no carpet bombing of Germany by the RAF later on or any bases or reason for the US to even be there.

By isolating and weakening Britain at sea nearby to her waters earlier on (mining and submarines) and not making wasteful air attacks on cities and focus on the RAF and Radar sites, even though the Germans both didnt have that many subs at the start of the war and their strategic air force capability was limited by aircraft types available, it may have been more possible to defeat the UK and more valuable to have made more limited attacks to the British mainland rather than committing fully to an all out onslaught such as the Battle of Britain as it occurred, which consumed valuable men, material and resources and can be lost and then give hope to potential allies.
Also, not sending out small groups of Capital ships into the Atlantic (without air or other support to at least harry or attempt to concern the RN enough from losing ships as they had to Japan in the East).
Doing so put these ships at more risk of being sunk (ie Bismark and small number of ships that accompanied her). The Bismark could have been used within range of the European mainland coast and most likely could have made a bigger impact on the RN by destroying them directly or drawing them into being attacked by air by the Luftwaffe (although that level of combined use of forces didnt exist in Germany, with headstrong leadership intent on pursuing their own personal agendas).

(They also could have limited their large shipbuilding projects from earlier and developed more capable subs).
Alongside dealing with Great Britain in the Med, mainly taking out Malta and pouring resources into a North African campaign.

Victories there before British land forces commanders were changed, and mainly before the British had an opportunity to turn around any losses (the British in a sense traded land and time like the Soviets because the Germans in North Africa didnt have the resources to outright destroy their enemy. Had they been supplied to do so, then that would likely have provided Germany ultimately with access to oil through what is now Syria/Iraq and Iran, and a route through the Suez.

Germany had some connections with Japan and could have made more diplomatic efforts to dissuade them from any attack on the US which could have been predicted. By offering the Japanese to participate in attacks on British dependancies/ thereby isolating Australia & NZ or at least causing concern for their own to defence to provide troops/support to Britain in her backgarden, while also still not outright provoking the USA into a full conflict by attacking them, which was generally opposed in the US.

Potential successes against the British in North Africa, could have provided the Germans a better means to either attack the Soviet union later from a better situation, ie either Great Britain knocked out of any extended war, Possibly with a second route through the Caucasus, or even just the threat of that to divert Soviet forces with the main route as per Barbarossa, and even a 3rd route from the East by supporting the Japanese with a limited attack on Soviet soil and a naval blockade.

In that situation, I think the Soviet Union would have capitulated.

Even if prior to such a scenario had the Soviets preemtively attacked in Eastern Europe, its likely they would be no better prepared for it themselves than the Germans were, their equipment and organisation was likely worse, morale and the lack of incentive to act with initiative (stymied by the late 30's purges of the army)
That itself would give good grounds for Germany to launch its own intended attack at any time that suited following destroying any incoming assault by the Soviets.

Its possible such a follow on Barbarossa2 may not even have been opposed in the US as they themselves werent exactly pro communist. The Soviets may have turned on themselves and Stalin might have been shot in some basement of the Kremlin by 1944.

As bad as the Soviets were, fortunately for the rest of us the Germans weren't so organised in cooperative actions with the Japanese, and that they seemed to over extend themselves in every theatre, and to some extent even that they weakened the Soviets and that the war was so brutal that that in itself prevented the Soviets from making any dash to the coast of France, either earlier on and even later when they were able.

Having said that, certain German commanders may have been able to do it, ie win what came to be described as WW2, Hitlers meddling in matters on numerous occasions hindered that, his ideology prevented at different points opportunities to not lose men and materiel by forcing Generals to command their units to stand their ground and fight to the last, rather than not losing men and equipment which was not sustainable.

I think it could have been possible for them to win with the forces they had at their disposal from Sept 1939, had they done things differently.

magicbastarder

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Some say Hitler didn't even know all that much about the death camps and that Himmler orchestrated the entire scheme himself.

am i the only one for whom this plays in my head in a jeremy clarkson voice?

Del2005

JJayoo wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah, but conversely if the British had developed jet aircvraft earlier than they did, the war might have take a different and shorter course.
]

But the nazis did develope jet Aircraft during the war, the British didn't I do t really see your point.

The British did develop a jet during the war, look up Frank Whittle. It was a more complex design so wasn't flyable during the early war, they where used to hunt down V1s later on in the war.

JJayoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah, but conversely if the British had developed jet aircvraft earlier than they did, the war might have take a different and shorter course.
]

But the nazis did develope jet Aircraft during the war, the British didn't I do t really see your point.

Peregrinus

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Some say Hitler didn't even know all that much about the death camps and that Himmler orchestrated the entire scheme himself.

I am not among those who say that. I don't have a lot of time for those who do, to be honest. And, anyway, I don't see how it would be relevant in this context.

V8 Interceptor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hitler considered the anti-Jewish actions to be part of the war effort - he didn't think he could win the war without "solving the Jewish problem" - and therefore he was prepared to deliberately compromise conventional military efforts in order to undertake anti-Jewish actions.

Some say Hitler didn't even know all that much about the death camps and that Himmler orchestrated the entire scheme himself.

Peregrinus

JJayoo wrote: »

They developed a jet powered plane and a missile that was capable of hitting the UK, if these had been developed at the beginning of the war, and not the end, they would have taken dominated any aerial fighting.

Yeah, but conversely if the British had developed jet aircvraft earlier than they did, the war might have take a different and shorter course.

So what? These speculative alternative histories mean nothing. Unless there is evidence that the Nazis starved some potentially war-winning programme of resources in order to allocate them instead to anti-Jewish actions, you can't really say that the Nazis lost because of their antisemitism.

I think the best case you can make about this is the most conventional one. It has nothing to do with secret weapons or brilliant individual scientists. It's simply that, right from the get-go, the Nazis were diverting resources away from Operation Barbarossa; we have army generals, for example, complaining that their advance is being delayed because railway resources are being deployed for the transport of Jews, or because military units are being order to support the SS in anti-Jewish actions behind the front.

Whether this could have made the difference between defeat and victory is debateable. As it was, the Germans got to the outskirts of Moscow by the end of November 1941, but they could not take it before the winter set in and they had to retreat. If with extra resources they had got there a couple of weeks earlier, and if that had given them time to build up their forces and launch an attack before winter, and if that attack had been successful, the loss of Moscow might have been such a psychological blow to the Soviets that, e.g. Stalin might have overthrown in a Politburo coup and/or assassinated, and that might have changed the course of the war. But there's a awful lot of ifs and mights in there.

And I think that's the only case we know of where there was a direct trade-off between the needs of the German war effort and anti-Jewish actions. Hitler considered the anti-Jewish actions to be part of the war effort - he didn't think he could win the war without "solving the Jewish problem" - and therefore he was prepared to deliberately compromise conventional military efforts in order to undertake anti-Jewish actions. His army generals, to a man, disagreed, and therefore we know of the conflict and how it played out. But I think that's the only circumstance where we know of such a thing. The Germans might have made other errors in not developing atom bombs or jet aircraft, or in declaring war on the US when they didn't really have to, but those errors are not so obviously motivated by antisemitism.

JJayoo

They developed a jet powered plane and a missile that was capable of hitting the UK, if these had been developed at the beginning of the war, and not the end, they would have taken dominated any aerial fighting.

V8 Interceptor

completedit wrote: »

Also resources put into extermination camps rather than war effort.

Do you hold any truck with David Irvine re the camps Sir?

completedit

magicbastarder wrote: »

Isn't there an argument that if Hitler had not hated the Jews, he'd have had the Bomb first because multiple Jewish physicists wouldn't have fled?

Also resources put into extermination camps rather than war effort. Can't remember exact link but follows your point. Every thing added up to eventual defeat.

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

Isn't there an argument that if Hitler had not hated the Jews, he'd have had the Bomb first because multiple Jewish physicists wouldn't have fled?

There's an argument, but I'm not sure how strong it is. Hitler wasn't terribly interested developing atomic weapons; the German programme started late and was seriously under-resourced because Hitler gave it a low priority. So even if European Jewish physicists had remained in Europe and were available to the support the programme, he might not have made use of them.

The bigger difference would have been on the other side; Teller, etc, would not have been available to the US atomic programme. But it would still probably have been a bigger, earlier and better-resourced programme than anything the Germans were doing.

Del.Monte

It's also an interesting probability that if Hitler had not started WW.II. the German rugby union team would be in the Six Nations competition now rather than Italy.

It's also a well established fact that God is an Englishman and so he was hardly going to let the Nazis win.

magicbastarder

Isn't there an argument that if Hitler had not hated the Jews, he'd have had the Bomb first because multiple Jewish physicists wouldn't have fled?