How COULD Nazi Germany win WWII?
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
- Status
A feasible strategy would be to invade the Middle East. Before you rip this plan apart consider the following. Now to be honest, I can’t assure anyone that a Med/M. East strategy would be sufficient for victory, but it would have certainly been less costly than a 41’ Russian invasion-- any analysis shows that. Compared to the 153 divisions needed to invade Russia and the differential in potential casualties it was a more cost effective strategy. With Germans to the West and South the political balance of power in Turkey could have been turned in Germany's favor (particulary cut-off from Allied-non Russian- support). This would put German in a much better position vis-a-vis a potential invasion of Russia. With a German-Turkish Army group poised to invade the southern Causasus and three more facing Russia's western borders success was more likely and a political solution of co-operation with Hitler by Stalin also possible (at least the threat of attack by Stalin against German held territories less likely). With an intact German army & Luftwaffe (that is neither decimated in a Russian invasion) it is not likely the Western allies could achieve battlefield success in north Africa nor in any 'return to the continent' (208 + German divisions would have been quite a deterrent even if half had to face the Russians).
All that being said Germany would probably have been better off pursuing such a strategy. It could have severely weakened Britain and been in a position to attack Russia from the south as well as the west (though the Turkish rails could not have supported a large force it could have supported a force adequate to take the Caucasian oil fields). It certainly would have been a great defeat for the British and would have enhanced Germany's strategic position. Iraq, Persia and Vichy run Syria would have been pro-Axis and would have been strategically useful. For example, the significant Lend Lease aid to Russia which went via Persia wouldn't have occurred. Probably the main benefit would have been the capture of the Suez Canal. This would have had a great effect on British morale. The capture of Egypt & Suez might have influenced Franco to allow Germany to capture Gibraltar & then expel the British from the Mediterranean altogether, thus removing the later threat of Italy's invasion.
The forces available are: 15-20 German Divisions inc. 3 armoured (For example, at the time of rea? Barbarossa 38 German divisions were in the "West", 12 in Norway and 7 in the Balkans uncommitted to the attack on Russia ? with no need to maintain this level of forces in situ - no British threat, no invasion in France. Also no invasion and so no need to garrison Yugoslavia or Greece at least 20 divisions could have been made available for an offensive on the USSR via Iran and Turkey); 25 Italian Divisions inc. 3 armoured (partially re-equipped with captured British tanks), would also inc. all Alpine troops; Strategically it would not have required a large force. Rommel's German forces at full strength with four mobile divisions, three infantry/parachute brigade equivalents, three artillery brigade/group equivalents not to mention the Italian forces would have been more than adequate.
This is especially true if they had been able to galvanize the Italians to make good use of their navy. While it would require the 'grounding' of virtually ALL Italian vehicles the subsequent capture of transport and supplies would be adequate for short term sustenance of a drive on the Suez. If such a force were supported by the airborne forces available to Germany chances for success increase. Historically the RN made plans to evacuate the East Med once Rommel entered Egypt, no doubt they would have done so in '41 also. With the capture of supplies and transport, the excellent port/capacity of Alexandria drive into the Levant was possible. It is not likely Mussolini would have refused Hilter had the latter insisted on a Med strategy, particularly with the fiascos of Greece, Sidi Barrani and the ongoing debacle in E. Africa.
In his writings, Rommel certainly mused on the possibility of siezing the Middle east oil fields and stated that this would solve all of Germany's POL needs (see The Rommel Papers). He also developed an outline plan for taking the Nile if he had not been stopped at the 1st battle of El Alamein. He was known for his selective disobedience of his Italian superiors. who would have argued with success? '41 was the prime moment for pursuit of a Med strategy with the objective of a superior position for invasion of Russia. Commonwealth forces were at their weakest in N. Afr/M.East in relation to Axis strength. German airpower was at its greatest in relation to allied airpower. A Med. strategy with all its difficulties would be easier and less costly in men and equipment than a '41 Russian invasion. Loss of after loss would have a cumulative effect on the politics of Great Britain & Germany's chances for success much better that her other options.
Had Hitler pushed for it with all the diplomatic and military pressure and co-ercive options available it could have resulted in cooperation. Capturing Alexandria would have forced the RN to abandon E. Med clearing the way for Italian and occupied country shipping. As it was Rommel’s historical force was three armored divisions (DAK & Ariete) and one motorized division (Trento). Substituting a German panzer and motorized unit for the two historical Italian units is not just dropping four motorized divisions into the theater. With an entire Luftflotte in support, the airborne forces and if Turkey is successfully co-erced into cooperation it all becomes possible.
All that being said Germany would probably have been better off pursuing such a strategy. It could have severely weakened Britain and been in a position to attack Russia from the south as well as the west (though the Turkish rails could not have supported a large force it could have supported a force adequate to take the Caucasian oil fields). It certainly would have been a great defeat for the British and would have enhanced Germany's strategic position. Iraq, Persia and Vichy run Syria would have been pro-Axis and would have been strategically useful. For example, the significant Lend Lease aid to Russia which went via Persia wouldn't have occurred. Probably the main benefit would have been the capture of the Suez Canal. This would have had a great effect on British morale. The capture of Egypt & Suez might have influenced Franco to allow Germany to capture Gibraltar & then expel the British from the Mediterranean altogether, thus removing the later threat of Italy's invasion.
The forces available are: 15-20 German Divisions inc. 3 armoured (For example, at the time of rea? Barbarossa 38 German divisions were in the "West", 12 in Norway and 7 in the Balkans uncommitted to the attack on Russia ? with no need to maintain this level of forces in situ - no British threat, no invasion in France. Also no invasion and so no need to garrison Yugoslavia or Greece at least 20 divisions could have been made available for an offensive on the USSR via Iran and Turkey); 25 Italian Divisions inc. 3 armoured (partially re-equipped with captured British tanks), would also inc. all Alpine troops; Strategically it would not have required a large force. Rommel's German forces at full strength with four mobile divisions, three infantry/parachute brigade equivalents, three artillery brigade/group equivalents not to mention the Italian forces would have been more than adequate.
This is especially true if they had been able to galvanize the Italians to make good use of their navy. While it would require the 'grounding' of virtually ALL Italian vehicles the subsequent capture of transport and supplies would be adequate for short term sustenance of a drive on the Suez. If such a force were supported by the airborne forces available to Germany chances for success increase. Historically the RN made plans to evacuate the East Med once Rommel entered Egypt, no doubt they would have done so in '41 also. With the capture of supplies and transport, the excellent port/capacity of Alexandria drive into the Levant was possible. It is not likely Mussolini would have refused Hilter had the latter insisted on a Med strategy, particularly with the fiascos of Greece, Sidi Barrani and the ongoing debacle in E. Africa.
In his writings, Rommel certainly mused on the possibility of siezing the Middle east oil fields and stated that this would solve all of Germany's POL needs (see The Rommel Papers). He also developed an outline plan for taking the Nile if he had not been stopped at the 1st battle of El Alamein. He was known for his selective disobedience of his Italian superiors. who would have argued with success? '41 was the prime moment for pursuit of a Med strategy with the objective of a superior position for invasion of Russia. Commonwealth forces were at their weakest in N. Afr/M.East in relation to Axis strength. German airpower was at its greatest in relation to allied airpower. A Med. strategy with all its difficulties would be easier and less costly in men and equipment than a '41 Russian invasion. Loss of after loss would have a cumulative effect on the politics of Great Britain & Germany's chances for success much better that her other options.
Had Hitler pushed for it with all the diplomatic and military pressure and co-ercive options available it could have resulted in cooperation. Capturing Alexandria would have forced the RN to abandon E. Med clearing the way for Italian and occupied country shipping. As it was Rommel’s historical force was three armored divisions (DAK & Ariete) and one motorized division (Trento). Substituting a German panzer and motorized unit for the two historical Italian units is not just dropping four motorized divisions into the theater. With an entire Luftflotte in support, the airborne forces and if Turkey is successfully co-erced into cooperation it all becomes possible.
DMA and I had a big row about this the other week.
It is feasible, however the problem is most of the German army is horse drawn - have fun with that in the desert.
Therefore the Germans can ONLY campaign offensively in the mid East if they deply their in force - 25 motorised divisions is about 2/3rds of them in 1941.
This solves the oil problem, but no others. In 1942 the Red Army will be stronger than the Wehrmacht, the window of opportunity will be closed. The Briitsh will be knocked and humiliated but still in the war, and the USA will still be there.
Also the middle East will be hard for the Germans to garrison/defend without committing most of their motor transport - crippling their strategic options.
Tactically formidable, strategically weak due to lack of investment in logistics, Hitler's sweeping ambitious plans could not get round that problem - and neither will those of anyone else on this board. London or Moscow have to fal before the end of 1941. That is the only chance of German victory.
It is feasible, however the problem is most of the German army is horse drawn - have fun with that in the desert.
Therefore the Germans can ONLY campaign offensively in the mid East if they deply their in force - 25 motorised divisions is about 2/3rds of them in 1941.
This solves the oil problem, but no others. In 1942 the Red Army will be stronger than the Wehrmacht, the window of opportunity will be closed. The Briitsh will be knocked and humiliated but still in the war, and the USA will still be there.
Also the middle East will be hard for the Germans to garrison/defend without committing most of their motor transport - crippling their strategic options.
Tactically formidable, strategically weak due to lack of investment in logistics, Hitler's sweeping ambitious plans could not get round that problem - and neither will those of anyone else on this board. London or Moscow have to fal before the end of 1941. That is the only chance of German victory.
Wozza said:
Yeah a big stoush! lol
Anyway, other than our different points over transport & logistics etc, the garrison part is actually the easy part . You simply have the Italians manage that, whilst the main German divisions etc man the front.
Also the Red army may indeed be stronger on paper, in 1942, but it'll still have all the structural problems which plagued it in 1941. Furthermore, sure the T-34 might be around in numbers, but the German Mk Is & IIs will be pretty much out of the front line in 1942, leaving the Mk IIIs & the far better Mk IVs making up much of the front line panzer units. Even the next German models, the Tiger I & the Panther may, not only be on the drawing board, but in the case of the Tiger I, may be on the front lines too.
DMA said:Yeah a big stoush! lol
Anyway, other than our different points over transport & logistics etc, the garrison part is actually the easy part . You simply have the Italians manage that, whilst the main German divisions etc man the front.
Also the Red army may indeed be stronger on paper, in 1942, but it'll still have all the structural problems which plagued it in 1941. Furthermore, sure the T-34 might be around in numbers, but the German Mk Is & IIs will be pretty much out of the front line in 1942, leaving the Mk IIIs & the far better Mk IVs making up much of the front line panzer units. Even the next German models, the Tiger I & the Panther may, not only be on the drawing board, but in the case of the Tiger I, may be on the front lines too.
Yes, I had not thought of the Italians, if the Allies try to counter-attack there may be trouble, but otherwise they can hold on to the area - and the loss of the Italian army from the eastern front is no big deal!
Hmm, one more year the Red Army will have recovered from the purges, 1942 was Stalin's ideal fighting date - and of course, the Germans lost anyway...
Wozza said:
Except the Allies will have nothing in North Africa, whilst trying to offer some sort of defence to the approaches to India. I can't see how they'll counter attack for some considerable amount of time. And I agree about no big loss of the Italians on the Russian front
Wozza said:
Yet there won't be any Stalingrad in 1942. And I can't see an extra year will make much difference to the Red Army's capabilities whether it be 1941 or 1942. They'll still be in serious trouble, & it probably needs a dreadful performance for Stalin to realise his earlier mistakes.
Grey Wolf
Donor
I have come round to a greater understanding that an attack on the USSR is going to be part of a world war. Whilst, if Poland had remained a one-off conflict, or one quickly ended by an Anglo-French accord with the Nazis, I would say that the attack on the USSR would come later...if there is a general war, then the Nazis will attack the USSR. I do not find anything now to doubt that.
In that case, the question becomes simple - how will Nazi Germany defeat the USSR ?
Grey Wolf
In that case, the question becomes simple - how will Nazi Germany defeat the USSR ?
Grey Wolf
Here are some basic ideas on how to be victorious on the western fronts in Europe...
-Don't even start building Graf Zepplin. Use the resources to build and R&D more U-boots. Same thing with any plans for battleships after Bismarck and Tirpitz.
-Put extreme pressure on the Vichy French to enter the war. After all, they were on the verge of doing so after Mers-el-Kebir.
-When Raeder brings up the Mediterranean Strategy, accept it. Put more than OTL pressure on Spain for military access, at least. Once they accept, send a few of the elite Mountain infantry and heavy guns to crack open Gibraltar. Get Mussolini to accept Germans in "his" sphere by promising them Tunisia or summat. Then, have the 7. Flieger-Division ready from a paradrop on Malta by the end of 1940, with support from Italians.
-Keep the Luftwaffe bombing No. 11 Group's Command Airfields, Traning Fields, and Aircraft Factories. While Sealion is out of the picture, the shattering of the RAF in Southern Britain will enable the Luftwaffe to bomb the British cities not much later than in OTL, with much less opposition.
-Still send the DAK to Africa, but do it about 5 months earlier, before the Italians are badly thrashed. And make the DAK much bigger, as well, so it consists of, say, 3 armored divisions and 2 motorized. With the help of the unbeaten Italians, Alexandria, Cairo, and the Suez might just be taken by late 1941.
-Forget about Barbarossa until 1942. By then, Germany will be in a better position to take out the USSR anyway. Italy will likely still attack Greece, bit Germany needs to be in on it from the beginning. Once Yugoslavia switches sides, make the invasion easier by contacting some Croat dissendents. Promise them their own country right from the get-go. Also, with Greece hopefully already taken care of, Italy should have more troops ready to invade from Albania.
-Send pretty much the whole German Fleet out on Rheinbung. Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, and Gnieuseau should all go, as well as any German cruisers and destroyers that are ready. Check out this great work by DMA to see how such an action might've gone. Once the Surface Fleet is gone, having taken a sizable chunk of the Home Fleet with it, Hitler will likely devote all Kriegsmarine resources to U-boot's...
-As stated repeatedly before, make U-boot R&D a priority. The Battle of the Atlantic was the only part of the war that Churchill admits to being greatly concerned about, and for good reason.
-Don't declare war on the US. It's OK if Japan is crushed, after all, it will give Germany a few extra years to consolidate in the West for any possible American attack.
Thoughts?
-Don't even start building Graf Zepplin. Use the resources to build and R&D more U-boots. Same thing with any plans for battleships after Bismarck and Tirpitz.
-Put extreme pressure on the Vichy French to enter the war. After all, they were on the verge of doing so after Mers-el-Kebir.
-When Raeder brings up the Mediterranean Strategy, accept it. Put more than OTL pressure on Spain for military access, at least. Once they accept, send a few of the elite Mountain infantry and heavy guns to crack open Gibraltar. Get Mussolini to accept Germans in "his" sphere by promising them Tunisia or summat. Then, have the 7. Flieger-Division ready from a paradrop on Malta by the end of 1940, with support from Italians.
-Keep the Luftwaffe bombing No. 11 Group's Command Airfields, Traning Fields, and Aircraft Factories. While Sealion is out of the picture, the shattering of the RAF in Southern Britain will enable the Luftwaffe to bomb the British cities not much later than in OTL, with much less opposition.
-Still send the DAK to Africa, but do it about 5 months earlier, before the Italians are badly thrashed. And make the DAK much bigger, as well, so it consists of, say, 3 armored divisions and 2 motorized. With the help of the unbeaten Italians, Alexandria, Cairo, and the Suez might just be taken by late 1941.
-Forget about Barbarossa until 1942. By then, Germany will be in a better position to take out the USSR anyway. Italy will likely still attack Greece, bit Germany needs to be in on it from the beginning. Once Yugoslavia switches sides, make the invasion easier by contacting some Croat dissendents. Promise them their own country right from the get-go. Also, with Greece hopefully already taken care of, Italy should have more troops ready to invade from Albania.
-Send pretty much the whole German Fleet out on Rheinbung. Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, and Gnieuseau should all go, as well as any German cruisers and destroyers that are ready. Check out this great work by DMA to see how such an action might've gone. Once the Surface Fleet is gone, having taken a sizable chunk of the Home Fleet with it, Hitler will likely devote all Kriegsmarine resources to U-boot's...
-As stated repeatedly before, make U-boot R&D a priority. The Battle of the Atlantic was the only part of the war that Churchill admits to being greatly concerned about, and for good reason.
-Don't declare war on the US. It's OK if Japan is crushed, after all, it will give Germany a few extra years to consolidate in the West for any possible American attack.
Thoughts?
Wozza said:
Plus, even if the Brits are driven out of Egypt, the Germans still need to cross Suez. Ethiopia has already been conquered by the Allies, the whole of French Central Africa is with de Gaulle, and Belgian Congo is still in the fight. Leclerc in Chad was already a pain to the Italians in the Fezzan. Expect that pressure from the South to increase dramatically.
Grey Wolf
Donor
These aren't just ships they are prestige symbols - having one's navy sunk is not good for morale or standing vis-a-vis other nations
And more than that, these are ships which carry a lot of men ! OTL a lot of the more experienced would transfer to the u-boats when the surface fleet became largely irrelevant. Here you would be killing this valuable source of experienced manpower
Grey Wolf
Grey, this is NAZI GERMANY. While there will certainly be some news of a defeat coming back to the Fatherland, I doubt that there would be widespread realization that the fleet was completely gone. As for the manpower, some of it might've been picked up by those ships that escaped. And after all, I'm not saying that DMA's "Great Sole Bank" has to happen in TTL. The German fleet might not encounter the Home Fleet at all, or both sides might lose less ships. Something like Rhienbung is probably bound to happen anyway, with the German battlefleet sailing out to go convoy raiding and possibly inflict damage on the RN. And the best thing to do in such a plan would be to send as many ships out as they could, so...Grey Wolf said:
luakel said:
Forget about this one. It would be the surest way for the Germans to see the French take arms again against them. Once Darlan was over with the emotion caused by MeK, he reverted to his plans of joining the war back ASAP, and Weygand was playing all the tricks to keep the French Armistice army in combat shape. Pétain himself was the only obstacle to have the French fully join the fray again at the time of Torch.
One particularly devious suggestion I have read before is that after Pearl Harbor, Hitler should have declared war on Japan in support of his Arayan brothers in the USA. However improbable, that would really have caused problems for tthe British and Americans!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Forget about Barbarossa until 1942. By then, Germany will be in a better position to take out the USSR anyway. Italy will likely still attack Greece, bit Germany needs to be in on it from the beginning. Once Yugoslavia switches sides, make the invasion easier by contacting some Croat dissendents. Promise them their own country right from the get-go. Also, with Greece hopefully already taken care of, Italy should have more troops ready to invade from Albania.
Delaying Barbarossa is extremely risky, the Russians can only get stronger and better prepared, whereas the Germans are at their peak in 1941. These allies are useful but pretty low value.
Fundamentally the Germans have an odd logic regarding two front wars:
WW1: Invade France get at Russia
June 1941: Invade Russia to get at Britain
December 1941: Declare war on the USA so Japan attacks the USSR, it falls and so no 2 front war.
Delaying Barbarossa is extremely risky, the Russians can only get stronger and better prepared, whereas the Germans are at their peak in 1941. These allies are useful but pretty low value.
Fundamentally the Germans have an odd logic regarding two front wars:
WW1: Invade France get at Russia
June 1941: Invade Russia to get at Britain
December 1941: Declare war on the USA so Japan attacks the USSR, it falls and so no 2 front war.
Max Sinister
Banned
Tony Williams said:
Almost impossible, since Britain had declared war on Japan already three days before, so we'd have a three-sided war??? (US, UK, SU vs. Germany vs. Japan)
Max Sinister
Banned
I once started to write a "Hitler tries the Mediterranean startegy" TL. Hitler conquers most of the Middle East and is more successful in Russia (yes, I know, the Red Army was stronger in 1942 than 1941, but I guess after the Germans bombs the oil fields of Baku, the nice Russian tanks have to sit around, and all in all the Red Army has the same effective strength as in 1941, or is even weaker)
Max Sinister
Banned
Yes... but when the Allies attacked Ploiesti, it just got into their reach, i.e. they had to fly over German-controlled territory. The Germans would have the advantage that the Turks and / or Persians probably wouldn't fight back, and since Russia doesn't expect an attack, they're screwed.
And about the Allies giving Russia the oil: I don't know when Russia started to get Lend-Lease help... did this happen in OTL before Hitler declared war on the US? I don't know how much gas the Red Army will need for their tanks... could be millions and millions of barrels...
And about the Allies giving Russia the oil: I don't know when Russia started to get Lend-Lease help... did this happen in OTL before Hitler declared war on the US? I don't know how much gas the Red Army will need for their tanks... could be millions and millions of barrels...
- Status