How COULD Nazi Germany win WWII?

[Cockroach]

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.

Its not simply a case of divinding BB tonnage by SS tonnage. The avaliblity of slipways etc. will place a considrable limit on U-Boat construction anyway.
If you had the additional slipways to build the subs on then you probably could have built the 300 subs in addition to the two BBs.

 

[DMA]

Its not simply a case of divinding BB tonnage by SS tonnage. The avaliblity of slipways etc. will place a considrable limit on U-Boat construction anyway.
If you had the additional slipways to build the subs on then you probably could have built the 300 subs in addition to the two BBs.

Yes, I'm aware of all that. Nevertheless, the Germans, under the strains of WWII, instead of during a period of 5 years of peace (which I'm advocating), were able to build over 1 000 U-Boats without additional slipways, docks, resources etc. They simply built what was needed more or less overnight (as per their sub bases in France & Norway etc as well as at home). Now if they could build about 60 U-Boats, between 1935-39, whilst also constructing ships like Bismarck, Tirpitz, etc, there's no way you can tell me they can't, if those ships were cancelled, build 250 extra U-Boats in their place.

 

[MarkA]

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.

If there is a melting pot mentality then there is no Nazism and therefore no Hitler. You cannot have a credo that preaches tolerance and inclusion that would resemble Nazism in any sense. No Nazi crazies then probably no war.

Cooperation? These people were suspicious of their own cliques how could they trust each other? Most political energy in Germany went into dividing power so no one person could accumulate too much and become a threat. That is why production of war materials for example was under multiple command structures.

The Japanese Army command wanted to assasinate Yamamoto for not supporting their strategy so the Navy gave him command of the Fleet so he could be protected. How could such a system cooperate with foriengers when they were prepared to murder each other?

The Italians - well they were Italians. The Germans were uncivilized barbarians while the Japanese were irrelevent.

 

[Othniel]

What about a more affulent Intagralism?

 

[DominusNovus]

Dunkirk could help...

How about Hitler going for Africa and then to the Middle East as a primary aim? This puts Germany in control of the Suez and lots of oil, and seriously weakens the British position. It also opens another potential theater of operations on the eastern front, which Stalin will have to defend.

There's an interesting timeline on changing the times right now, about this. It may be a bit optimistic for Germany, but its interesting.

 

[Wendell]

Maybe if the Germans don't turn on Stalin, or if the Germans build the Bomb?

 

[Wendell]

Dunkirk could help...

How about Hitler going for Africa and then to the Middle East as a primary aim? This puts Germany in control of the Suez and lots of oil, and seriously weakens the British position. It also opens another potential theater of operations on the eastern front, which Stalin will have to defend.

There's an interesting timeline on changing the times right now, about this. It may be a bit optimistic for Germany, but its interesting.

And maybe sparks rebellion in India?

 

[Ward]

The Most importian thing Germany needed to do was stop over engerning the equpment . There tanks were to complex what they needed was a less complex tank that they could of mass produced like the sherman or the T-34 tank.

 

[Tony Williams]

I covered a lot of this in my novel The Foresight War, in which present-day historians from both Britain and Germany wake up in 1934.

Of course a lot could have been done to improve military equipment (I go into some detail about this in the book), but in most cases this would not have had a decisive effect on the war. Some weapons could have, however - no-one has so far suggested the earlier development of the Type XXI Electroboats, which were too good for the RN's anti-sub ships and techniques and could have had a dramatic impact on the Battle of the Atlantic. There was no technical reason why they could not have been designed and built earlier.

There are also strategic and tactical changes which could have been made, for example in the way the war on the UK was conducted, which have been touched on already. Not declaring war on the USA would have posed some interesting dilemmas for the Allies, also.

Essentially, however, the German conduct of the war comes down to Hitler's personality and ambitions, which would have been much more difficult to change - unless you write him out of the script at an early stage.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Wozza]

What about a more affulent Intagralism?

I sense that if I knew what on earth this meant I would be a happier person.

 

[Wozza]

Dunkirk could help...

How about Hitler going for Africa and then to the Middle East as a primary aim? This puts Germany in control of the Suez and lots of oil, and seriously weakens the British position. It also opens another potential theater of operations on the eastern front, which Stalin will have to defend.

There's an interesting timeline on changing the times right now, about this. It may be a bit optimistic for Germany, but its interesting.

The Changing the times story you refer to is completely unrealistic for various reasons.
The importance of the halt order is completely overrated and is really about the generals making excuses.
The middle east is possible but it means no Barbarossa in 1941

 

[Wozza]

Essentially, however, the German conduct of the war comes down to Hitler's personality and ambitions, which would have been much more difficult to change - unless you write him out of the script at an early stage.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

I reallly must disagree with this. The war is fought with the limits of the German military machine.

Most of the comments on this threas illustrate why Germany lost the war, not how it could be won.

Most of the ideas here strain against logistical and economic realities - just like Hitler's. Essentially various contributors want Hitler's creativity and ambition written out and replaced with their own. This will not win the war, it will simply change the end result.

The contradictory nature of some suggestions illustrates this - one person suggesting stop over-engineering and use tried and tested, another saying push straight for electro-boats...

 

[jolo]

The Only reason Germany need to fight in Africa wa beacuse the Italians were in trouble there .

I'm not quite sure about it, but I believe the Germans also liked to get some oil from there via Italy. And it was also a good place to start a land war against Britain, as long as landing in Britain was impossible.

 

[jolo]

If there is a melting pot mentality then there is no Nazism and therefore no Hitler. You cannot have a credo that preaches tolerance and inclusion that would resemble Nazism in any sense. No Nazi crazies then probably no war.

Cooperation? These people were suspicious of their own cliques how could they trust each other? Most political energy in Germany went into dividing power so no one person could accumulate too much and become a threat. That is why production of war materials for example was under multiple command structures.

The Japanese Army command wanted to assasinate Yamamoto for not supporting their strategy so the Navy gave him command of the Fleet so he could be protected. How could such a system cooperate with foriengers when they were prepared to murder each other?

The Italians - well they were Italians. The Germans were uncivilized barbarians while the Japanese were irrelevent.

I'm not talking about such a peaceful society - a melting pot policy can still include a lot of what the Nazis stood for. And I'm not here to advocate the Nazis - I just like to point out a few of their obvious mistakes when discussing here. And it wouldn't be the first country to be (pretty) tolerant on the inside and expansionist on the outside - just look at the Roman Republic.

In terms of cooperation I agree with you - one of the reason why fascists probably never really had a chance - except maybe by being forcefully united under a single command. WI Germany had taken over Italy in 1941, after they failed in Greece, like they did OTL in 1943? Next, Vichy France shares the same fate 2 years earlier, and then maybe some more neutral countries in Europe, especially if they feel threatened by Germany and may join the wrong side otherwise. Better than Barbarossa.

 

[Wozza]

Yes, I'm aware of all that. Nevertheless, the Germans, under the strains of WWII, instead of during a period of 5 years of peace (which I'm advocating), were able to build over 1 000 U-Boats without additional slipways, docks, resources etc. They simply built what was needed more or less overnight (as per their sub bases in France & Norway etc as well as at home). Now if they could build about 60 U-Boats, between 1935-39, whilst also constructing ships like Bismarck, Tirpitz, etc, there's no way you can tell me they can't, if those ships were cancelled, build 250 extra U-Boats in their place.

DMA, I have thought long and hard about this. Like your Middle East idea I think it is worth exploring in detail, but I still think you are wrong:

1. The Nazi economy, the Nazis planned for war inl 1944, the infrastructure was still being built up to 1942, this is what allows much faster weapons building from that date. I assume this applies to u-boat slipways

2. Type VIII vs Type VIIIB. The former sailed 1936, the latter 1938, I cannot see 300 of the latter being ready by 1940 come what may. Whilst the former had many problems. This, and Tony Williams electroboat reference brings us to the eternal dilemma of military technology - many tried and tested models, or a few of the more advanced. There is no right answer, simply swinging to extremes however will just bring different problems - see the Tiger tank for one extreme, the Sherman perhaps for the other.

3. Training. This is a brand new arm, there will not be the chance to train so many crews at once

4. Total resource. The two battleships weight only half as much as 250 boats. It is less the weight of steel, of which Germany produced circa 20 million tons a year than the fittings, particularly the engine, which would have taken up considerable engineering resources.

I will look to find more figures on all of this.

To conclude I think that the Germans could have had a bigger u-boat fleet by 1940, but not at the level you suggest without a substantial cutback somewhere other than big ships.

 

[DMA]

DMA, I have thought long and hard about this. Like your Middle East idea I think it is worth exploring in detail, but I still think you are wrong:

1. The Nazi economy, the Nazis planned for war inl 1944, the infrastructure was still being built up to 1942, this is what allows much faster weapons building from that date. I assume this applies to u-boat slipways

This is true, but I am talking about only 300 U-Boats built over a 5 year period. And I'm talking about probably only two models overall, instead of the wartime experience. In WWII they build about 1 000 over a 5 year period, whilst in dire compeition with everything else. Here we're talking the navy only concentrating on 60 U-Boats a year (on average) without any major capital ships being built at the same time AND without major competition for resources coming from the Herr or the Luftwaffe.

2. Type VIII vs Type VIIIB. The former sailed 1936, the latter 1938, I cannot see 300 of the latter being ready by 1940 come what may. Whilst the former had many problems. This, and Tony Williams electroboat reference brings us to the eternal dilemma of military technology - many tried and tested models, or a few of the more advanced. There is no right answer, simply swinging to extremes however will just bring different problems - see the Tiger tank for one extreme, the Sherman perhaps for the other.

I've been avocating for the Type VII. It's basically an improved Type II. The way I see it, they'll have 50 Type IIs & most of the rest would be Type VII. The Type VII were originally designed in 1933. Construction began in 1935. So they're being built right at the beginning of the period which I'm advocating. Other than those, maybe 10-20 U-Boats would be of the more advanced Type IX, but not many. There certainly wouldn't be any of the Type XXI Electroboats for the very reasons that you've mentioned. Only tried & tested Types would be around. And again, we're talking about a period when the likes of Tiger tanks & so forth aren't competiting for the resources.

3. Training. This is a brand new arm, there will not be the chance to train so many crews at once

Well again we're talking about a 5 year period when crews aren't required for Bismarck et al.

4. Total resource. The two battleships weight only half as much as 250 boats. It is less the weight of steel, of which Germany produced circa 20 million tons a year than the fittings, particularly the engine, which would have taken up considerable engineering resources.

Well as Cockroach pointed out, you can't really equate sub tonnage to battleship tonnage. More than likely you'll use more resources for a battleship per ton than you will for an equivalent tonnage of submarine. But to add to the simple equation of tonnage, you can also scrap the useless Graf Zeppelin along with a number of other pointless projects & easily build the 300 U-Boats IMHO.

I will look to find more figures on all of this.

To conclude I think that the Germans could have had a bigger u-boat fleet by 1940, but not at the level you suggest without a substantial cutback somewhere other than big ships.

Well look into it if you can. As I said long ago lost in time somewhere, I only mentioned the 300 U-Boat figure because that was what Dornitz said he'd need. Clearly what Germany started with wasn't enough. Maybe they could do it with just 250. Then again, maybe they'd need a lot more in 1939/40.

 

[Johnestauffer]

Balance

Naval forces need to be balanced. If the KM had only U-boats as the major threat it would have facilitated the RN's response. With the BB's, large amounts of allied resources were tied up watch for or trying to destroy them. Capital ships were needed for convoy escorts and so on, requiring substantial manpower.
More U-boats would have helped, more importantly a coherent policy for their employment was needed. More L/R a/c were needed for recon duties and general anti-shipping operations at the beginning of the war.

Had Speer been in charge of the industrial resources in 1939, things would have been different also. More war materials would have be produced & reserves built up. (If Germany started manufacturing armaments at the level they achieved in 1944 it would have been a different situation)

If the German's can resolve the situation on the western front prior to Dec. 1941 there is a chance.
Even in the worse case senario, had the UK been occupied, would there be a British government in exile that would continue to agitate for US involvement.

The German's failed to exploit the British attacks on French naval units in North Africa. It was a great propoganda opportunity to alter the French attitude toward the UK.

Once the US entered the war, the balance tipped.

Also, Stalin would probably declare war on Germany in any case.

One interesting approach - almost all the eastern nations were afraid of the USSR. It would have been interesting to see Germany form a European Defense League to challenge the USSR. This league would include just about every nation in Europe (after all, at some point in time, volunteers from every European country fought on the Eastern Front). This would mean that should the US declare war on Germany, they would be declaring war on most of the European states. (Maybe the RM would have become what the Euro is today)

 

[Wozza]

Naval forces need to be balanced. If the KM had only U-boats as the major threat it would have facilitated the RN's response.

Good point, I was thinking that the RN would not actually have much time to respond under DMA's plan. A more interesting question is actually if British diplomacy changes, which may be more far reaching.

Had Speer been in charge of the industrial resources in 1939, things would have been different also. More war materials would have be produced & reserves built up. (If Germany started manufacturing armaments at the level they achieved in 1944 it would have been a different situation)

Speer is another man who benefits by living to write memoirs. Nazi war industry is busy with expansion until 1942, after that opportunity for rationalisation was rife, but beforehand it could have been a distraction, and there was a lack of data to convince Hitler of the need. Also it involved treading on significant toes - namely Hermann Goerings.

 

[hans]

This is an answer of 1 milion dollar !

This is an answer of 1 milion dollar !
Germany ,during 1940 , don't invade England as France ,but with heavy submarine war force England to firm an armistice and Germany will take a great part of colonies of France and England in Africa.

 

[hans]

The important Pod for me....

The imporant Pod for me is when starting Operation Barbarossa in 22 June 1941 : then attack Uchraine , Hitler attack directly Moscow !