How could Hitler have won WW2?

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

.

Really enjoyed your post.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

@ Samsonmasher


If Trump had clung onto power something along the lines of your post could theoretically have occurred but with the Russians occupying Western Europe save for France and the UK who would have been too dangerous to take on. Certainly one could see a scenario where the UK would stay out of a war with Russia if NATO had been let crumble by Putin's puppet in Washington. Interesting stuff for a movie anyway.

The war was lost when the door was kicked in and the whole rotten soviet union didn't came down. Even if Germany would have been quicker at Moscow, this would have been no quick win, and winter comes guaranteed. Supply lines are over stretched. Moscow's sacking might even shorten the war in favour of Russia.
Even if Moscow would have been captured, short lived victory as the government was ready to relocate.
To win, get UK, US or Russia on your side.

dubrov wrote: »

Tensions were bubbling long before Hitler. I can't see German Jews being msssive nationalists given the hate from the rest of the local population

Some were. Didn't one win get awarded an Iron Cross?

The order to halt the panzers before Dunkirk ensured that the British could evacuate 300,000 odd troops and gain a valuable morale boost just when they were on the ropes. If the Germans had captured those troops the Brits may have sued for some sort of peace settlement meaning that Hitler would not have been distracted by operation Sealion and various other campaigns and could have the full might of his army focused on Barbarossa.

Das Reich wrote: »

No. England and France were doing problems since the Saarland went back to Germany.

Nazi policy pre 1938 was ideally an alliance with Britain. The Germans aspired to having a "British empire of their own" so propaganda at that time praised the British.

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

That's for another thread lol. I am solely interested in possible outcomes from that famous showdown between Halifax and Churchill.
Being a WW2 nerd in the extreme I think that is the moment when History changed.

I was always the opinion that the turning point in the war was around the first military defeats of the Wehrmacht in North Africa, so what led to that essentially led to the overall defeat of Germany.


The fact that Barbarossa had already started prevented an overall victory in North Africa, and because Hitlers goal was always in the East, before they secured other areas, half hearted and piecemeal efforts made in North Africa that werent followed through or in the BAtlle of Britain where they couldnt follow through were wasted, that always left them vulnerable to being attacked and having to go on the defensive.


Once as was said the Soviet house of cards didnt collapse, didnt necessarily mean the Soviets werent on the verge of imminent defeat, it was a close run thing and the Soviets themselves suffered manpower shortages, possibly partly becuase they wastefully threw men into the meatgrinder, but only just because they did it more, doesnt mean the Germans werent at it either. By not securing the Mediterranean and North Africa any loss of men and equipment taking ground was a complete waste if they werent going to finish the job.
It seems ideology and urgency to deal with what was always in Hitlers mind, which was to attack Soviet Russia.
If the effort and resources expended on the battle of Britain (and certainly Barbarossa) had been focused on North Africa and Malta I think this would have had a more significant effect than facing off with Mainland Britain which could be seen as an all or nothing battle of survival for their existence. The Germans never had the ability to follow it up with a seaborne invasion, but they could have tied up British resources by making attacks on airfields/ports and potentially forcing the RN to operate more defensively.


Cutting the suez canal and their access to the rest of the Empire and oil in the middle east to Great Britain would have had a greater affect on any war with them without directly making it a war of survival for the British which was put that way to help turn American public opinion.
While still being involved in agreement with the Soviets, Germany could have gotten more results by supporting and cooperating with the Italians, who had manpower and a large Navy into defeating the RN and British forces in that region.
This would have staved off the requirement for an urgency to reach the Caucasus for oil in Barbarossa, but still have placed it in easier reach to remove it from Russia prior to any later invasion.
With Britain out of any war or so weakened and isolated to their mainland, submarine warfare could have reduced any further capacity to fight, assuming they had not already sued for peace.



So in my opinion, regardless of the British deciding to fight on and Churchill having succeeded in remaining, it could still have been possible to defeat them prior to the US becoming involved and before attacking Soviet Russia.

No all out Battle of ideology in attacking Britain where they could show themselves in an underdog light protecting some candle of democracy, which the German forces couldnt follow through on, but rather cutting the British link to their colonies and an attack on their link away from her home territory , that could have been achieved and access to oil by fighting and defeating them in North Africa and the Mediterranean, which would have been easier and risked less than an all out attack on Soviet Russia, but which still provided them with certain materials and resources they needed, ie the Russians were providing the Germans with materiale before Barbarossa, and they could have accessed their oil requirements from the Middle east. Disincentivizing
The Japanese from attacking the US, which also revolved around an urgency to have unaffected access to oil resources, by encouraging them in securing the Indian Ocean, further breaking the link between Great Britain and Aus/NZ.
With India left to India and British forces there with no support, as a colony, it would have ended, The Japanese sphere of influence cold have been up to South East Asia, they could have focused on theri war against China, rather than fighting a technologically superior foe, again ideology hamstrung them as much as the Germans.

A later Barbarossa not focusing on Juggling Army group resources such as tanks and the time wasted in that and as someone said gaining support in both potentially Allied and Conquered territories that were opposed to the Soviets (from Finland, the Baltics and Ukraine), even from withing Russia itself could have finished off The Soviet Union in shorter order, again the option offered to the Defenders was too limited to leave them any option but to fight for their survival.
The Soviets could have been weakened prior to that by having a potential Japanese threat in the East and German forces near their borders south of the Caucasus's.
Really having ideology as a primary objective instead of real military and practical considerations in a war undermines the side with those as objectives.
Its wasteful of resources and divides and diminishes your own forces.

Conall Cernach wrote: »

The order to halt the panzers before Dunkirk ensured that the British could evacuate 300,000 odd troops and gain a valuable morale boost just when they were on the ropes. If the Germans had captured those troops the Brits may have sued for some sort of peace settlement meaning that Hitler would not have been distracted by operation Sealion and various other campaigns and could have the full might of his army focused on Barbarossa.

I think its likely that a defeat that captured those men, would have put Britain out of any further war, it would have been an over whelming thing for the BEF to be defeated and captured, for the population, rather than just defeated and escaped, the Germans could have operated from a position of authority in peacefully removing the UK and even have them support and feed the German BEF captives, Im not sure if the Germans had the capacity to feed them, its possible they may even have gained many of the ordinary soldiers as Allies (although probably mostly unlikely), because the British didnt treat those same ordinary men from the same classes any better themselves between the Wars back home.

Das Reich wrote: »

More likely an alliance with Soviet Union, they even sent soldiers there to be trained when Germany couldn't have motorized army (before 1935) and airplanes.

I think this was more out of a requirement to train and test equipment in secrecy than any want or need to be allied to them.