How COULD Nazi Germany win WWII?

Status
Not open for further replies.
a nazi win is possible in 1940-42


the western front had to be dealt with before barbarossa amoung other things. knocking out the brits could bring the spanish to the axis side. let italy roast in the balkans and n. africa.

if hitler had a mindset like bismack, limited military and political gains, a victory could be..
 
A) Switch to a full war economy after the invasion of Poland, at the latest.

B) Ignore the surface Kriegsmarine, concentrate on submarine warfare against British shipping.

C) Concentrate the Battle of Britain on actual military targets.

D) Don't invade Russia.

E) Be lucky enough to have an isolationist in the White House, and convince the Japanese to take the Dutch East Indies without worrying about the Phillipinnes base.
 
Anung Un Rama said:
What about inventing Jets, in say 1940 and using them for the Battle of Britian?:)

it could work, but remember the reason the nazis lost the battle of britian was applying bomber attacks away from bases to cities. but jets wont hurt :cool:
 
Pretty much what Forum Lurker said, & as I've posted elsewhere before & I'll stress again, Germany starts the war with over 300 U-Boats. The Germans then commence, after the UK declares war, a blockade of Britain using their U-Boats.

Then, after the Fall of France, again as Forum Lurker said, the Germans conduct the Battle of Britain against RAF Fighter Command, the air fields, & other worthy military targets. Then against Britain's industrial capacity. Essentially, Britain is starved into submission.
 
Forum Lurker said:
A) Switch to a full war economy after the invasion of Poland, at the latest.

QUOTE]

How many times do I have to post on this topic? Clearly you do not lurk on this site ENOUGH.

The Nazis had a full war economy from about 1936.
 
I think DMA's U-boat alternative is interesting, but I wonder if there are blockages.

I am not sure different tactics in the Battle of Britain would make much difference, Fighter Command still has plenty of reserves in 12 Group when the switch is made to bombing London.

I am suprised no-one has mentioned not pushing straight for Moscow in summer 1941, that was a real missed opportunity and may have been decisive.

Also of course, accepting Stalin's 1943 peace offer might have been an idea.
 
The World would have been in a lot of trouble had the effort put into terror weapons had gone into jets.

The key thing required for a German victory in WW2 is for Hitler not to be taking any major military / diplomatic decisions after say June 1940
 
Wozza said:
I think DMA's U-boat alternative is interesting, but I wonder if there are blockages.

I am not sure different tactics in the Battle of Britain would make much difference, Fighter Command still has plenty of reserves in 12 Group when the switch is made to bombing London.


Well the 300 plus U-Boats plan was what Dornitz said would be required for the U-Boat blockade of the UK. he lost out, though, when they made the decision to build Bismarck & Tirpitz. The decision to do otherwise would have to be made in around 1935.

The Battle of Britain part is really to make teh UK use all her remaining resources, which are significantly lower than the OTL, because of the U-Boat blockade. By late 1940, basically Britain is dry on fuel, low on resources to build war supplies, & the people are basically living on a starvation diet.

So it wouldn't matter if 12 Group has plenty of reserves if they have no fuel to fly the planes with. So the BOB becomes a battle of attrition, which in this case, the Germans can easily win.



Wozza said:
I am suprised no-one has mentioned not pushing straight for Moscow in summer 1941, that was a real missed opportunity and may have been decisive.


Well we are talking Hitler here ;)


Wozza said:
Also of course, accepting Stalin's 1943 peace offer might have been an idea.


Sounds interesting this peace offer. What did it contain?
 
But the 300 U-boats idea was thought of pre-Fall of France, wasn't it?

With the fall of France and use of submarine bases on the French coast, shorter transit times and avoidance of the defences in the Channel and North Sea would reduce casualties and keep more boats on station. Probably could have conducted a far more effective blockade with far fewer numbers.
 
Derek Jackson said:
The World would have been in a lot of trouble had the effort put into terror weapons had gone into jets.

The key thing required for a German victory in WW2 is for Hitler not to be taking any major military / diplomatic decisions after say June 1940

The German planning system is chaotic, for science particularly so with no clear policy of support. Removing the proliferation of projects would require big changes in the Nazi system. Also without the benefit of hindsight who would konw what to keep and what to scrap? Experimenting on a number of fronts can be quite logical

Blaming Hitler is the old trick of the German generals, who lived to write their memoirs while he did not. It has been argued in all seriousness that the German army would have suffered a truly crushing defeat in winter 41/42 if it has not been for Hitler.
 
Fellatio Nelson said:
But the 300 U-boats idea was thought of pre-Fall of France, wasn't it?

With the fall of France and use of submarine bases on the French coast, shorter transit times and avoidance of the defences in the Channel and North Sea would reduce casualties and keep more boats on station. Probably could have conducted a far more effective blockade with far fewer numbers.


As far as I know Dornitz was going on about 300 U-Boats in the Mid-1930s.

And I agree about what would happen with the Fall of France. Life would become very difficult in the UK from July 1940 onwards thanks to the blockade.
 
DMA said:
Well the 300 plus U-Boats plan was what Dornitz said would be required for the U-Boat blockade of the UK. he lost out, though, when they made the decision to build Bismarck & Tirpitz. The decision to do otherwise would have to be made in around 1935.

1935 is the year of the Anglo-German naval agreeement, remove that and a lot will change very rapidly, particularly Anglo-Italian and Anglo-Russian relations.
Also I wonder about the resources required for so many u-boats, more even than those two ships surely? Resources will have to come off some other programme, with consequences...
Finally Doenitz does not even have full command of the u-boat arm at this stage, he is one voice amongst many, although, of course, an extremely perceptive one.

The Peace Proposal: Made between the Back hand blow and Kursk in 1943
I can find nothing about it online!! It is a very glossed over topic, Jeremy Blacks's the Second World War is the best source that comes to mind.
It involved offering Germany Belarus, the Baltics, and maybe the Ukraine, I cannot recall. I think there is still serious controversy about how serious it was.
 
Wozza said:
1935 is the year of the Anglo-German naval agreeement, remove that and a lot will change very rapidly, particularly Anglo-Italian and Anglo-Russian relations.
Also I wonder about the resources required for so many u-boats, more even than those two ships surely? Resources will have to come off some other programme, with consequences...
Finally Doenitz does not even have full command of the u-boat arm at this stage, he is one voice amongst many, although, of course, an extremely perceptive one.


True about Dornitz's position at the time. The resources, which Bismarck & Tirpitz took up would have, thanks to their cancellation, been used to construct the U-Boats. So I can't see a problem there.

Of course the Anglo-German Naval Treaty maybe a different story, but it's not as if the Germans ignored that in the OTL whenever they wanted. As it was the Germans had about 50-60 U-Boats when war commenced. Not to mention both Bismarck & Tirptiz were bigger than the treaty permitted, as were all of the pocket-battleships.



Wozza said:
The Peace Proposal: Made between the Back hand blow and Kursk in 1943
I can find nothing about it online!! It is a very glossed over topic, Jeremy Blacks's the Second World War is the best source that comes to mind.
It involved offering Germany Belarus, the Baltics, and maybe the Ukraine, I cannot recall. I think there is still serious controversy about how serious it was.


Well if all that was on the offer table, by Stalin, then what can I say other than Hitler was an idiot. But that's no surprise ;)
 
DMA said:
True about Dornitz's position at the time. The resources, which Bismarck & Tirpitz took up would have, thanks to their cancellation, been used to construct the U-Boats. So I can't see a problem there.

Of course the Anglo-German Naval Treaty maybe a different story, but it's not as if the Germans ignored that in the OTL whenever they wanted. As it was the Germans had about 50-60 U-Boats when war commenced. Not to mention both Bismarck & Tirptiz were bigger than the treaty permitted, as were all of the pocket-battleships.

2 battleships = 250 u-boats?? Are you sure?

Also it's training, bases, repair facilities,dockyards (I know you have covered this partly by having a 1935 POD)
It all takes time to build up, and resources.
 
Wozza said:
2 battleships = 250 u-boats?? Are you sure?


Well that's 2 x 41,700 tons (standard) of battleship, not to mention all the fittings, weapons etc. That's an awfully large amount of resources.

Now if they make the VIIA U-Boats, instead, that's 250 boats x 626 tons.


Wozza said:
Also it's training, bases, repair facilities,dockyards (I know you have covered this partly by having a 1935 POD)
It all takes time to build up, and resources.


The thing is, though, they managed to do all that, & even more so, including all their surface ships plus built over a 1 000 U-Boats during wartime. So by not having Bismarck & Tirpitz, whilst only having to deal with 300 U-Boats over a 5 years period, shouldn't be overly too hard I would have thought.
 
Still Missing:

- Melting pot instead of race politics: Masses more people available as soldiers, workers, scientists, engineers, and so on. Allies develop bomb later. Conquered territories are quickly turned into allies, many more enemies surrender.

- More cooperation among axis: Japan attacking Russia ('39) and wondering why Germany couldn't help them wasn't too bright. Italy starting a war against Greece while Germany could use some help in North Africa also wasn't too good. In both cases it would have been wiser for the according nations to wait until the waters are safer for their actions - by concentrating on the problems they already had.
 
jolo said:
Still Missing:

- Melting pot instead of race politics: Masses more people available as soldiers, workers, scientists, engineers, and so on. Allies develop bomb later. Conquered territories are quickly turned into allies, many more enemies surrender.

- More cooperation among axis: Japan attacking Russia ('39) and wondering why Germany couldn't help them wasn't too bright. Italy starting a war against Greece while Germany could use some help in North Africa also wasn't too good. In both cases it would have been wiser for the according nations to wait until the waters are safer for their actions - by concentrating on the problems they already had.




The Only reason Germany need to fight in Africa wa beacuse the Italians were in trouble there .
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top