AMBOMB said:
How so? Because we entered the war before the Winter Equinox? Please.
At what point was Nazi Germany doomed to defeat?
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
How so? Because we entered the war before the Winter Equinox? Please.
They were defeated from the very begining. Even after the fall of France due to the size of the Royal Navy they were never going to defeat Britain, which meant that even if the Soviets and the US never got involved, a Napoleonic situation would occur of the Elephant and the Whale with neither side able to defeat the other developing into a cold war type situation, eventually with the Reich falling.
It would take far longer, but the outcome would be the same.
It would take far longer, but the outcome would be the same.
To be fair to that fool (even if he doesn't deserve it), many people at that time (outside the US, and even a few inside IIRC) thought that the US was being outclassed in terms of military by flashy Nazi and Japanese conquests (eg. the Bliztkrieg).
Hell, even FDR said that the United States was woefully inadequate to defend itself.
"Enemy ships could swoop in and shell New York; enemy planes could drop bombs on war plants in Detroit; enemy troops could attack Alaska." --- Conversation between FDR and a reporter in Feb. 1942. (Source: TIME-LIFE - Home Front, Pg. 26).
Of course, apart from one or two occassions where enemy ships and planes did attacked targets in CONUS (puny attacks even then
), the US never had to experience the harsh realities of war like it was in Britain or Russia (and the threat of invasion was equal to zero, since it would be a damn logistical nightmare for both Japan and Germany to pull off in the first place). Back to that loon's point, he was a loon from start to finish. They say that you should never judge a book by its cover. Well, certainly, Adolf Hitler was just doing that with the United States when he declared war.HelloLegend
Banned
What if Hitler had realized it would be Normandy? Then the Allies fail.
What if the Allies run into bad wheather after the launch?
What if the Allies run into bad wheather after the launch?
Nope, it'll just prolong the war and let the Soviets steamroll over Germany.
The Nazis never could have won. They were doomed right after their seize of power in 1933 because of ideology.
I don't say that Germany could never win a second WW, but the Nazis won't.
For Hitler, war was not inevitable, but necessary. He said that any people NEEDS war to sort out the weak. Thus he wanted a war every 7-8 years for the Reich. I don't see the Germans winning a war against the US or the Russians every 7-8 years...
If you look at Generalplan Ost, you will see how Nazi-ideology works. They wanted to resettle millions of Slavs to Siberia and they wanted hundrets of millions of them for slave work. They planned to eradicate the whole elite of Poland, Czechia... to get willing, illiterate slave workers. This was not an exception. Such plans can logically be derived from Hitlers "Mein Kampf". So even if the Germans invade Britain successfully in 1940 and take Moscow and Wladiwostok and Alexandria and Bagdad in 1941 and have nuclear weapons, they'd have a never-ending partisan war from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And their atrocities would never end as long as the Nazis are in charge. No democratic country could accept such an evil empire anywhere in the world.
The Nazis might be more successfull in single campaigns - but they would still loose the war and ultimatively, they're doomed.
I don't say that Germany could never win a second WW, but the Nazis won't.
For Hitler, war was not inevitable, but necessary. He said that any people NEEDS war to sort out the weak. Thus he wanted a war every 7-8 years for the Reich. I don't see the Germans winning a war against the US or the Russians every 7-8 years...
If you look at Generalplan Ost, you will see how Nazi-ideology works. They wanted to resettle millions of Slavs to Siberia and they wanted hundrets of millions of them for slave work. They planned to eradicate the whole elite of Poland, Czechia... to get willing, illiterate slave workers. This was not an exception. Such plans can logically be derived from Hitlers "Mein Kampf". So even if the Germans invade Britain successfully in 1940 and take Moscow and Wladiwostok and Alexandria and Bagdad in 1941 and have nuclear weapons, they'd have a never-ending partisan war from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And their atrocities would never end as long as the Nazis are in charge. No democratic country could accept such an evil empire anywhere in the world.
The Nazis might be more successfull in single campaigns - but they would still loose the war and ultimatively, they're doomed.
Max Sinister
Banned
Yes... but it's not what I'd call it a defeat (although Hitler might take it as personally as if it was).
Of course it was crazy, but from Hitler's POV it made more sense - of course, he made many false assumptions, thinking the US would be way weaker and unwilling to fight than they were, expecting that he could still win the war against Russia as long as the US hadn't entered the scene, and that Japan would now declare war on Russia.
Which gives me an idea: Did the Japanese attack American Lend-Lease ships going to Vladivostok? If no, could it have changed the war if they did?
Max all the lend lease ships were "Russian".
Yes they were built in the US stocked in the US and I believe sometimes crewed by the US{this last point I might be mistaken in} but the ships were Russian flagged and therefore Russian regardless of where they were built or even if the Russians had paid for them which they hadn't.
Max Sinister
Banned
OK, so an attack on them would lead to war between Japan and Russia immediately.
Redbeard
Banned
It is fascinating to see so many detreminists on an alternate history board
Looking on production capacities etc. is indeed interesting, but no matter how big an industry it still needs to be transformed into armies winning on the battlefield, and that again requires the political will to deploy said armies and keep them in the field.
In general the western allies had an interest in playing it safe, but if say the British are talked into the US view of trying an invasion of France already in 1943, then we are most likely to end up with the US/British army defeated and the Russians still far away from their 1941 borders. It also means that Germany still has access to most of the strategic resources and with no prospect of a Second Front in the near future I could certainly imagine serious talk about separate peace agreements. The initiating PoD could be Alan Brooke not becoming CIGS, but some less strong willed chap instead.
I'm sure Hitler will not be in the front of such talks, but I'm also sure that a serious offer of peace from either the west or the east will in short order kill Hitler, and thereby drastically increase the diplomatic manoeuvreability of Germany.
And about the ever lasting: "we'll just nuke 'em in the end" claim: USA will not have enough nukes until well inside the 50's to have any prospect of nuking Germany into submission. By then Germany might have a lot of "funny" things too. The Japan nuked in 1945 was practically void of any resources short of human life with which to wage war. As long as the German Army is in the field and undefeated the Nazis will not give a damn about this or that city being nuked, but of course use it in propaganda - the industry is already dispersed and/or moved to safer places. In order to take out a dispersed industry and a huge army in the field with nukes you will probably need thousands of warheads - you risk being caught up by nuclear winter.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Looking on production capacities etc. is indeed interesting, but no matter how big an industry it still needs to be transformed into armies winning on the battlefield, and that again requires the political will to deploy said armies and keep them in the field.
In general the western allies had an interest in playing it safe, but if say the British are talked into the US view of trying an invasion of France already in 1943, then we are most likely to end up with the US/British army defeated and the Russians still far away from their 1941 borders. It also means that Germany still has access to most of the strategic resources and with no prospect of a Second Front in the near future I could certainly imagine serious talk about separate peace agreements. The initiating PoD could be Alan Brooke not becoming CIGS, but some less strong willed chap instead.
I'm sure Hitler will not be in the front of such talks, but I'm also sure that a serious offer of peace from either the west or the east will in short order kill Hitler, and thereby drastically increase the diplomatic manoeuvreability of Germany.
And about the ever lasting: "we'll just nuke 'em in the end" claim: USA will not have enough nukes until well inside the 50's to have any prospect of nuking Germany into submission. By then Germany might have a lot of "funny" things too. The Japan nuked in 1945 was practically void of any resources short of human life with which to wage war. As long as the German Army is in the field and undefeated the Nazis will not give a damn about this or that city being nuked, but of course use it in propaganda - the industry is already dispersed and/or moved to safer places. In order to take out a dispersed industry and a huge army in the field with nukes you will probably need thousands of warheads - you risk being caught up by nuclear winter.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Agree with Redbeard. About resources, they can change a lot: just have to look at the ones Germany had when the war started and the ones they had at their peak, in summer 1941. If the germans could beat the soviets, there would be a peace offer that the british would have to accept one moment or the other. Imagine all the resources of a Reich that goes up to the Urals against the british islands and empire between, say, 1942 and 45. IMHO, the war was decided in Barbarrosa, at the gates of Moscow.
George Carty
Banned
Because the Germans in World War I were essentially fighting over Poland and the Baltic States, and never penetrated deeply into Russia. The Russians gave up when they lost Riga (a city which fell in the very first week of Operation Barbarossa).
Kerensky's war ended close to where Stalin's war started.
Until such time as Germany had no hope of defeating or signing a treaty with either the UK or USSR doom was avoidable. Only when no reasonable hope for a separate peace or a military victory existed did Nazi Germany face doom.
I would estimate that the twin successes of D-Day and Bagration were the clincher. Had either offensive failed...
I also disagree with certain revisionists who believe Stalin could be persuaded to sign a separate peace, possibly planning to renege later, after the tide turned against Hitler. Any separate peace meant the most valuable prizes, Germany itself and the occupied territories closest, would not go to Stalin then and might leave him very unhappy if Germany suddenly took a dive.
In the book Fox On The Rhine and the sequel Stalin gains access to much German technology and such plus acquires Greece and Norway in return for a temporary armistice. In return Stalin forfeits Lend Lease as of August 1944, forfeits most of his OTL gains in the Pacific, destroys relations with the WA, leaves an intact and armed de-Nazified Germany behind and never gets to plunder or occupy German territory or the Czech Republic(each of whose industry and value was far beyond Greece or Norway in 1945).
Since Stalin was no fool, he would undoubtedly leave this fictional series only too aware that he made a very bad decision.
I would estimate that the twin successes of D-Day and Bagration were the clincher. Had either offensive failed...
I also disagree with certain revisionists who believe Stalin could be persuaded to sign a separate peace, possibly planning to renege later, after the tide turned against Hitler. Any separate peace meant the most valuable prizes, Germany itself and the occupied territories closest, would not go to Stalin then and might leave him very unhappy if Germany suddenly took a dive.
In the book Fox On The Rhine and the sequel Stalin gains access to much German technology and such plus acquires Greece and Norway in return for a temporary armistice. In return Stalin forfeits Lend Lease as of August 1944, forfeits most of his OTL gains in the Pacific, destroys relations with the WA, leaves an intact and armed de-Nazified Germany behind and never gets to plunder or occupy German territory or the Czech Republic(each of whose industry and value was far beyond Greece or Norway in 1945).
Since Stalin was no fool, he would undoubtedly leave this fictional series only too aware that he made a very bad decision.
It is fascinating to see so many detreminists on an alternate history board
Well,maybe they don't consider themselves "determinists", but just guys who did their homework.
The industry needs manpower. Manpower is in cities.
Dispersion was attempted. The result was that the industry became less vulnerable to being hit directly, but that the Allied switch to strategic bombing transportation targets was even more effective than direct hits. The more you disperse to "safer places", the more your safely produced goods will be stopped within a few kilometers from the factory, by a destroyed railway bridge/tunnel/marshalling yard.
Suppose they nuke Ploesti and a couple of the main synth fuel plants? The huge army in the field becomes a huge park of immobile rusting scrap iron.
Nuclear weapons will be useful if a ground invasion of Germany is underway. Its just in alot of hypothetical timelines, this isn't the case.
1. Germany defeats and conquers the Soviet Union.
2. D-day (or equivelent) goes horribly wrong.
3. Allies get kicked out of Italy.
4. Nuclear attack, one or two bombs on Germany.
5. Immediate and total surrender. Hitler and the entire Nazi party mysteriously end up dead despite the muted attempts upon Hitler in OTL. Who Germany is "surrendering" to is a bit of a mystery what with no occupying power being readilly available.. but thats no problem.
Its not realistic.
If Bagration had gone horribly wrong for the Soviets (reverse the casualties, although how you would do this is a bit of a mystery) then Germany could potentially have reached a state where they would secure terms.
1. Germany defeats and conquers the Soviet Union.
2. D-day (or equivelent) goes horribly wrong.
3. Allies get kicked out of Italy.
4. Nuclear attack, one or two bombs on Germany.
5. Immediate and total surrender. Hitler and the entire Nazi party mysteriously end up dead despite the muted attempts upon Hitler in OTL. Who Germany is "surrendering" to is a bit of a mystery what with no occupying power being readilly available.. but thats no problem.
Its not realistic.
If Bagration had gone horribly wrong for the Soviets (reverse the casualties, although how you would do this is a bit of a mystery) then Germany could potentially have reached a state where they would secure terms.
Well, is the Allies being kicked out of Italy realistic?
The D-day going horribly wrong is also rather far fetched.
Of course, anything can happen if the Germans withdraw everything they have in the East and send it in Italy and France. Not a bright idea, however.
Have you noticed how at the end of WWI, there was no occupation army ready, and much of Germany was indeed not occupied? Was that an unrealistic surrender by Germany?
It wasn't meant to be a realistic version of events. There have been some posters who essentially say whatever Germany does from 1939 onwards is irrelevent, because come 1945 the USA will have a nuclear weapon and that immediately means the war is over. This isn't the case. The same case tends to be made against Japan.
If the Nazi Empire spans from the Atlantic to the Urals with no hostile power upon the continent, a single (or even half a dozen) nuclear bomb(s) isn't going to see them surrender.
Surely you would agree that there is a difference between having a potential occupying army at the gates of Germany and the nearest force being across the channel or far beyond the Urals?
By 1918 it appeared to many, Ludendorff for example, even if he would change his mind, that Germany's defeat was only a matter of time. Another blockaded winter would have a terrible effect on the home front meanwhile the entente powers would bring up more resources (chiefly American) to push into Germany in 1919. The spectre of red revolution also hung over the scene.
Thats a very different situation to a Germany which has defeated the USSR, wiped out the cream of the Western Allies armed forces and is effectively unchallenged within fortress Europe. It is a Germany free to devote every effort and resource to air defence, coming up with nuclear weapons once they see it is possible (although if the raw materials are not there that is a dead end) and so on and so forth. Hitler could have been removed in OTL, the writing was on the wall from 1944 onwards, yet attempts against Hitler were weak and no coups occured untill the Soviets had surrounded Berlin.