How COULD Nazi Germany win WWII?

[Tony Williams]

Tony
I must disagree with you on a philosphical level. Hindsight is a form of ASB - it means someone knowing the future, which does not happen.

AH should be true Rankean history, illustrating the real choices available to people and how they could respond to them.

What I meant was that in looking back to the way things 'might have been' had circumstances been different, we (authors and readers) are inevitably using hindsight - information not available to people living at the time.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Ivan Rogov]

Continue attacks on British airfields in 1940. That almost had the RAF beaten. Concentrate on Britain first; after destroying the airfields, launch Sea Lion. With the "unsinkable airfield" of Britain out of the way, invade Palestine. British and French garrisons would soon collapse, forcing the 8th Army to scramble backwards from the front with the Italians to protect the Suez. Annihilate them in a vise grip. Seize the Persian oil. Move to India, join with Japanese and conquer. Would have to make sure Japanese didn't bomb PH, but it would be rather moot anyways with Britain out of the way.

 

[Max Sinister]

Also, I think that an offensive against Russia is the very worst thing Hitler can do, even if war with Russia is truly inevitable. One of Russia's greatest strengths is the amount of ground it can afford to give away to bleed its enemies; if the war is held in Poland instead of the middle of Russian territory, German supply lines are much shorter and more secure, there will be no disastrous pocketing, and casualties will overall be much lower.

But Russia will have control of all the resources in the Ukraine, then...

 

[Wozza]

It would be only logical that the Russians would put some fighters around Baku and be especially wary once the Germans control Syria and Iraq. However, the people on top don't always think logical, and in this case, Stalin had a weakness for Hitler, trusting him despite Hitler's ideology and behavior. Even in OTL he refused to believe that Germany was planning an attack despite 50 or so warnings. In TTL, it could be too late.

Stalin did not believe there would be an attack then. He was busy wishing there would not be. By 1942 he was planning to be ready for one.

I wouldn't say that the Germans are at their peak in 1942. In fact, if they wait a year, and weaken the Allies further, they will likely be in an evn stronger postition. Also, Stalin will probably have another purge, seeing how often he was doing them back then, to weaken the Red Army even more....

Although you are right to expect some wierd thinking from StalinI am not sure about another purge, arguably the USSR is "artificially" weak up to 1942, once that changes the balance inevitably tips, and keeps tipping in the USSR's favour

 

[Wozza]

What I meant was that in looking back to the way things 'might have been' had circumstances been different, we (authors and readers) are inevitably using hindsight - information not available to people living at the time.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

I think we practice several types of AH on this site, some very "historical" and others more "let's see what's possible."
Not type is wrong, I just prefer the more historical, looking at what people would have considered more strongly at the time. Of course we can never be fully objective, but we can try and put ourselves in other people's shoes, trying to cut out our own knowledge.

 

[Tony Williams]

Of course we can never be fully objective, but we can try and put ourselves in other people's shoes, trying to cut out our own knowledge.

That's the impossible bit, of course. We look back and think: "Why on earth did they decide to do that? Why didn't they do 'X' instead? It seems so obvious I can't understand why it didn't occur to them!".

The problem is that in most cases they took the best decision they could in the circumstances as they understood them. There are exceptions, of course, in terms of decisions which other people at that time recognised were wrong or had serious doubts about - the most glaring example being Percival's inactivity at Singapore, another being Montgomery at Market Garden. In most cases, however, I think that their decisions did not seem unreasonable at the time - so you have to apply hindsight in suggesting that they might have decided something different.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Wozza]

That's the impossible bit, of course. We look back and think: "Why on earth did they decide to do that? Why didn't they do 'X' instead? It seems so obvious I can't understand why it didn't occur to them!".

The problem is that in most cases they took the best decision they could in the circumstances as they understood them. There are exceptions, of course, in terms of decisions which other people at that time recognised were wrong or had serious doubts about - the most glaring example being Percival's inactivity at Singapore, another being Montgomery at Market Garden. In most cases, however, I think that their decisions did not seem unreasonable at the time - so you have to apply hindsight in suggesting that they might have decided something different.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

I completely agree. Personally I think there are a number instances where other options were reasonable and things could have turned out differently with the knowledge people had at the time. Relatively speaking these occasions are not that numerous, but in absolute terms I think they could keep this board going for years...

 

[Wozza]

That's the impossible bit, of course. We look back and think: "Why on earth did they decide to do that? Why didn't they do 'X' instead? It seems so obvious I can't understand why it didn't occur to them!".

The problem is that in most cases they took the best decision they could in the circumstances as they understood them. There are exceptions, of course, in terms of decisions which other people at that time recognised were wrong or had serious doubts about - the most glaring example being Percival's inactivity at Singapore, another being Montgomery at Market Garden. In most cases, however, I think that their decisions did not seem unreasonable at the time - so you have to apply hindsight in suggesting that they might have decided something different.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

You are absolutely right. Personally I think there are a number instances where other options were reasonable and things could have turned out differently with the knowledge people had at the time. Relatiely speaking these occasions are not that numerous, but in absolute terms I think they could keep this board going for years...

 

[Wozza]

That's the impossible bit, of course. We look back and think: "Why on earth did they decide to do that? Why didn't they do 'X' instead? It seems so obvious I can't understand why it didn't occur to them!".

The problem is that in most cases they took the best decision they could in the circumstances as they understood them. There are exceptions, of course, in terms of decisions which other people at that time recognised were wrong or had serious doubts about - the most glaring example being Percival's inactivity at Singapore, another being Montgomery at Market Garden. In most cases, however, I think that their decisions did not seem unreasonable at the time - so you have to apply hindsight in suggesting that they might have decided something different.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

You are absolutely right. Personally I think there are a number instances where other options were reasonable and things could have turned out differently with the knowledge people had at the time. Relatiely speaking these occasions are not that numerous, but in absolute terms I think they could keep this board going for years...

 

[jolo]

Try to use the Edit-button...

Another thing to consider is that no-one is perfect - people make mistakes, and leaders are especially prone to pushing even really bad decisions through, if only to keep their positions. Just look at our politicians of today.

Then there are political wingfights, which sometimes lead to bad decisions just because of the entrenchment of the two (or more) sides. The US for instance lost a lot of opportunities for peaceful or easily achievable expansions just because local politicians were afraid of cheap labor, of administrative difficulties, of being considered "imperialist", and the likes.

Another factor is popular sentiment - sometimes, politicians have to make really bad decisions to keep their subordinates from revolting, sometimes they can't do really good decisions unless they want a revolt.

Also, many decision makers let their personal interests stand above national interests - GB could have had breach loaded rifles in the ARW already, had there not been a lot of personal relations between military brass and the traditional suppliers (and some in hindsight silly arguments about high firing rates for soldiers forced into service).

Than there is the problem of decision makers being too involved in the details to see the broad picture. I remember for myself deciding to order PCs without hard disk for an organisation just when they were getting popular - a year later, they had to be purchased separately (at a high price), as most new programs didn't run without them anymore (yes, I'm *really* old.

And so on.

I suppose many leaders knew their decisions were bad, or at least risky, when they took them, but didn't see a choice or didn't want to take the best decision for other reasons. Some just realized soon after word was out, and couldn't go back - people who don't like counselling with every side on every matter are prone to that, especially as sometimes a few bad apples among mostly good apples are better than no apples at all - at least in their (and popular) perception.

Which is why hindsight is so difficult to keep away. With hindsight, one could turn any stone age civilisation into a modern information society spanning the whole globe within a few decades, or at least centuries.

 

[Tony Williams]

Reminds me a little of the Army saying: when under pressure in combat, it does matter so much what you decide to do, what really matters is to make a decision! Otherwise your troops lose confidence in you.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[mooface]

how germany could've won the war

for germany to win the war:

1.a total war footing in 1939
2.get rid of goering
3.develop better logistics by building more halftacks and make converting Russian railways a top pirority
4.start designing next generation of aircraft and tanks in early 1940 at the latest
5.concentrate on producing a few simplified designs of aircraft, tanks, artillery etc
6.tell Finland to cave into soviet demands for territory in 1939 with promise of regaining the terriotory in 1941
7.supply anti-communist elements in the USSR with weapons and recruit russians to fight against soviets
8.add a streamlined submarine hull to the most powerful electric batteries possible to create electroboats
9.don't build bismarck and Tirpiz, concentrate on submarines instead
10.don't couple the he177s four engines so it becomes a decent heavy bomber and use the fw187 as the standard twin engine fighter instead of the bf110
11.don't bother trying to invade the UK but make sure the BEF is captured at Dunkirk
12.cooperate more with Mussolini invade Greece and Yugoslavia together send German troops to North Africa in 1940 (weather musso wants it or not)

 

[NapoleonXIV]

1. Wait, Hitler's generals wanted to wait until 1943, Hitler's economics and world circumstances made 1939 better. I compromise and wait until 1941.

2. Have Jets and Tiger tanks stocked and in production before the war starts.

3. Don't go to war with England and France if you can avoid it. Take Russia first. Ally with Poland if you have to to get at Russia.

4. Consolidate your conquests before you go on. Having the Skoda works in Czechoslovakia was very helpful in having enough tanks to conquer France a year later.

5. Leave the Jews alone. You can send them all to America later but don't waste resources killing them.

6. Have a unified top command. Don't waste resources in duplicated efforts

7. Put ALL resources possible into developing the Atom bomb. Don't burn Einstein's books

8. Don't be Adolf Hitler.

 

[Thande]

1. Wait, Hitler's generals wanted to wait until 1943, Hitler's economics and world circumstances made 1939 better. I compromise and wait until 1941.

I'm not sure if you could both have the economic conditions required for rearming AND wait until 1941...the Germans would probably have been bankrupt before that in OTL if the war hadn't begun. Also, Hitler was building on a string of diplomatic victories from the reoccupation of the Rhineland, Anschluss, Czechoslovakia etc...
Broadly speaking you're probably right but I think the POD would have to be several years before 1939.

2. Have Jets and Tiger tanks stocked and in production before the war starts.

Not sure about the jets. Possible, but I think if the Germans actually had them before the war then the British would see it's possible and get Whittle to start building them for them as well, so the German tech advantage wouldn't last for long.

You COULD have the Germans have a heavy tank ready by the start of WW2 - planning for heavy tank production started in the late 1930s OTL - but it wouldn't be anything like as good as the Tiger, because that design was based on lessons learnt from the Russian front (as, to a much greater degree, was the Panther's)

3. Don't go to war with England and France if you can avoid it. Take Russia first. Ally with Poland if you have to to get at Russia.

This might work as a strategy, though I'm not sure if it counts as 'winning WW2' because it's so different from OTL. Certainly, if you can persuade Poland to give up the corridor and become an ally, then the West would probably be amenable to quietly supporting the Nazis over the Red menace.

4. Consolidate your conquests before you go on. Having the Skoda works in Czechoslovakia was very helpful in having enough tanks to conquer France a year later.

Aside from the diplomatic inertia thing I mentioned, this is probably true.

5. Leave the Jews alone. You can send them all to America later but don't waste resources killing them.

Or, even better, quietly give them the means to escape to Palestine and 'persuade' them it's a good idea, where they'll become the British's problem instead

6. Have a unified top command. Don't waste resources in duplicated efforts

Definitely.

7. Put ALL resources possible into developing the Atom bomb. Don't burn Einstein's books

Seems logical in retrospect but even if it was Hitler's pet project, I don't know if the Nazis could have channelled the same amount of cash and industry into it as the Americans were able to. After all, the Americans didn't have to worry about their project complexes being bombed, or being invaded by land because they didn't use those resources on conventional forces instead.

 

[Tony Williams]

Broadly speaking you're probably right but I think the POD would have to be several years before 1939.

Yep - I made it 1934 in The Foresight War, giving the Germans time to do many of the things that Boney suggests

 

[Thande]

Thing is, most suggestions for 'how the Nazis could win WW2' seem to hang on either 'different WW2' or 'different Nazis'. The classical Nazi victory scenario would have a recognisable WW2, probably having to be identical to OTL up to early 1942. But by then it's quite hard to pull a Nazi victory out of it. Stalemate is still possible, though, and in my opinion more interesting.

 

[Sylvester]

Avoiding a western front

To get a Nazi victory, Germany need to be able to make peace.

To get peace the allies need to be able to negotiate with Germany in good faith. This is pretty much imposible after Germany annexes Czechoslovakia.
As far as I recall Britain and France do not garanti Polands sovereignty until after that time.


War with Britain, France and the USSR, with clandistine support from the US will most likely lead to defeat. No amounts of hightech weapens will change this.

to get a Nazi victory Germany need to avoid war with Britain and there by avoid getting the US involved.

If Hitler dealt with Poland before Czechoslovakia he might be able to conquer Poland with out France and Britain declaring war.
Stalin will probably want his pound off flesh so eastern Poland will most likely go to the USSR.
This could lead to a situation were both the USSR and Germany are seen as bullies but France and Britain will not have declared war on Germany and Germany will now be sharing a border with the USSR, and we are talking 1938.

The USSRs aggressive politics towards the Baltic countries and Finland will be the perfect opportunity to start to talk to France and Britain and the rest of Europe about the terrible threat from the USSR. who knows were this might lead.

Another scenario deals with Hitler using Poland as a trap for the USSR. After the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. Hitler does nothing.
no invasion of Poland.
the USSR invades according to plan but Germany does nothing.
Germany then publicly asks Britain and France to take action against this attack on Poland, if they do nothing then Germany invades officially to save Poland.
The best result might be Britain and France as Germanys co belligerents against the USSR


These scenarios will demand Hitler keeping the SS on a short leash and avoiding the endlösung. To keep on the good side of Britain and France.

 

[Wendell]

The Germans win....

By not invading the U.S.S.R. in 1941.

Better yet, by taking the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a bit farther, and agreeing together on a strategy to beat the British...

 

[Max Sinister]

Hitler had that idea too, and offered Stalin Persia and India. (Of course he was still planning to backstab Stalin afterwards.) However, Stalin had more interests in other areas... Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Japan...

 

[zeitenschmiede]

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.

No they had not....thats just false.
nazi war machinery reached 100% at 1944 (!), not 1936.