Germany had a better chance than Japan, because it had a bigger industrial base. The U.S. had something like three times the economy of the other two put together.
How plausible it for a German victory in WWII?
- Thread starter MrNumbahOne
- Start date
Germany had a better chance than Japan, because it had a bigger industrial base. The U.S. had something like three times the economy of the other two put together.
Saphroneth
Banned
The US had a bigger economy than all the other combatants put together, I'm fairly sure - at least if we allow for the different war mobilization curves. (The US was at about the equivalent point in 1944 that the UK and Germany were in... let's say 1941-2, where the economies are hitting their stride but by no means maxed out. And after that point the US economy slowed down again for simple lack of need to go to the wall like the others did.)
Brits are from Britain, "Brits" is not a racial slur, but "Japs" from Japan is???
Yes a racist or a soldier fighting against them on Iwo Jima might say something like "God damn Dirty Japs". The racist part is the damning them out of hand and calling them dirty. It is not using an abbreviated term that is the name of their country in your country.
So if an IRA man were to say "God Damn Dirty Brits" the same would apply
Japan was America's enemy in World War II and Britain their ally so negative and positive connotations are applied
When Emily breaks up with her boyfriend Ed Jones and says "The Jones family are a bunch of lying, backstabbing, cheaters!" This doesn't make the name Jones bad but only shows her hatred/prejudice is being aimed at them.
With some words the fault lies with the way some one uses it and not the word
There are plenty of racist terms that are used to make fun of and/or attack a physical features like skin color or the shape of one's eyes or sex or sexual preference or the way a people speak or spell their names or the environment they grew up in (usually poor) or their ancestors history and customs. Those words are flat out racist.
Steps off soapbox
Back to question at hand
End of 1939 50%
End of 1940 70%
End of 1941 0%
Yes a racist or a soldier fighting against them on Iwo Jima might say something like "God damn Dirty Japs". The racist part is the damning them out of hand and calling them dirty. It is not using an abbreviated term that is the name of their country in your country.
So if an IRA man were to say "God Damn Dirty Brits" the same would apply
Japan was America's enemy in World War II and Britain their ally so negative and positive connotations are applied
When Emily breaks up with her boyfriend Ed Jones and says "The Jones family are a bunch of lying, backstabbing, cheaters!" This doesn't make the name Jones bad but only shows her hatred/prejudice is being aimed at them.
With some words the fault lies with the way some one uses it and not the word
There are plenty of racist terms that are used to make fun of and/or attack a physical features like skin color or the shape of one's eyes or sex or sexual preference or the way a people speak or spell their names or the environment they grew up in (usually poor) or their ancestors history and customs. Those words are flat out racist.
Steps off soapbox
Back to question at hand
End of 1939 50%
End of 1940 70%
End of 1941 0%
I didn't say German and Japanese odds of victory were the same. I was saying German and Japanese odds of making it as far as OTL if you ran things over again were roughly the same. Both had insane levels of luck that probably wouldn't happen 9 times out of 10.
Sometimes history is deterministic, or at least the overall outcome is. The Western Roman Empire didn't have to fall in 476, but the convergence of centuries of forces meant it would almost certainly fall or be massively reduced by the 5th century. It was too unstable, too poor, and had too many external factors working against it to maintain its position as a dominant power in the West. Similiarly, the rise of the United States was by no means destined to occur, but its size, starting wealth, and distance from other major powers meant it was likely to overtake European powers by the 20th century.
WWII saw Germany led by nuts attain an incredible string of good fortune coupled with their enemies screwing up massively, but that situation cannot last forever. The bigger enemies can adapt to their tactics, improve their weapons and doctrine, etc. Germany must either win immediately, which given the size of the USSR )its as far from Moscow to the Urals as from the border to Moscow) isn't likely and against the United States is completely impossible. Meanwhile the Nazi hatred of "Jewish" science means they will fall behind the Allies in a growing number of fields, especially in electronics and atomic research. Taken together with the Nazi idiocy in regards to economics and their monstrous behavior toward conquered people and the Nazi state is not one that is going to succeed in the medium to long term.
Significantly moreso than later successes. France was unstable and overall weak when the war started, and Germany was about as powerful as France and Britain together (on land at least). French and British blunders in the opening phases of WWII can be traced back to their horrific experiences in WWI and account for much of the problems their armies suffered. The Soviet Union was defeated at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa by incompetent leadership and the remarkably paranoid Stalin trusting Hitler.
But this kind of success is built on luck, and ultimately isn't sustainable. Germany began hitting the limits of its callable manpower in 1942-43. The Soviets, despite taking many times those losses didn't hit this point until 1945. Furthermore, the American industrial output allowed the Soviets to concentrate more fully on war important industries such as tank building while using an overall smaller amount of their population as a workforce.
So in the end chances of German victory over the Soviet Union or the UK is minuscule (though it does exist). Victory against the US is impossible. That isn't some kind of American superiority attitude either. Under no circumstances can Germany launch any kind of offensive against the United States to knock it out of the war, and even launching an attack against the US's key staging area for the European theater (that is to say Britain) wasn't possible BEFORE the US joined.
Thats the thing: Even without war with the USSR, there's only so many forces Germany and the Axis can afford to deploy beyond Europe to combat the British Empire - the limiting factor is logistics, not total-force size.
As it was, historically: They were already near their maximum capabilities. Rommels drive towards the Suez Canal was done on a shoestring - limited by how much the Germans & Italians could ship through to Africa past the Royal Navy - and historically, the RN was actively winning the war/had won the war in the Mediterranean by the time of El Alamein in 1942.
The Royal Navy also had won the Battle of the Atlantic, while the RAF had conclusively demonstrated its capability to smash the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. Britain & the Commonwealth was pretty much winning its fight against the Axis on its own in almost every combat theater beyond the immediate continent.
#############
Basically: Germany not going after the USSR will free up millions upon millions of soldiers & tons of equipment - but they will mostly be confined to the Continent, since the Axis completely lacks the ability to deploy more than a tiny fraction of them abroad to fight Britain's empire - and that capability would, just like historically, be progressively eroded away as the RN & RAF continues to chip away at the Italian Navy & Axis logistics (Fun Fact: Britain outproduced ALL the axis powers - Japan included - combined in naval vessels throughout WW2, the sole exception being fleet carriers - which had the war dragged into 1946 & 1947, Japan would have been hit with a Tsunami of British Carriers under construction - the UK's capability's are simply often overlooked because the USA outproduced them several times over as well).
Basically then: Its very very unlikely Germany can achieve much more than it did historically against Britain's empire. They can drag out the African campaign a bit - but there is going to come a time when the Royal Navy achieves crushing superiority in the Mediterranean - leading to any Axis forces in Africa being strangled to death from lack of supplies.
After that: It just means Europe becomes untouchable to the UK - since without US Support, DDays not happening.
We end up with a Stalemate - Britain becomes a fortress on the coast of Europe, while the Axis & British forces skirmish in the Mediterranean/Africa - with little real strategic momentum achieved by either side there (Its almost inconceivable that the Axis would actually manage to reach Suez, even without war against the USSR due to the logistical-problems).
Unfortunately for Germany: The UK at the time (1941) was the world-leader in the atomic project. No US-Intervention means the merger of the British-US Projects doesn't go ahead - meaning Britain will continue to chip away on its own (rather than merging like it did historically, only to get double crossed and have to begin its own project again after WW2).
The USA will probably still beat the UK to the Atomic Bomb - but thats not going to do Germany any good at all, when the UK itself gets it - probably a bit sooner than 1952.
So.... stalemate, until Berlin disappears under a mushroom cloud. At which point, it becomes a British victory.
There's simply no way Germany & Italy can beat Britain, even when its on its own. The tide was already turning in the Atlantic, Africa & Mediterranean by the time Barbarossa happened - or had already decisively become a British victory (Battle of Britain).
Last edited:
This has been said thousands of times whenever this question comes up, but it really depends on what you mean by "German Victory".
If you mean an outcome in which Nazi Germany achieves all of its 1939 territorial ambitions in Central and Eastern Europe with Britain and the Soviet Union remaining independent, powerful, and hostile but accepting the outcome in preference to a long war then I might put the odds at close to 40%. This would almost require a decision by Hitler not to attack the Soviet Union. Once that happens the likelihood of German victory drops to 10% or less
If you mean an outcome that includes Britain and the Soviet Union, defeated, occupied, and Nazified, maybe 1-2% at best.
If you mean an outcome that included defeat of the above 3 powers plus the United States defeated and occupied, 0%.
If you mean an outcome in which Nazi Germany achieves all of its 1939 territorial ambitions in Central and Eastern Europe with Britain and the Soviet Union remaining independent, powerful, and hostile but accepting the outcome in preference to a long war then I might put the odds at close to 40%. This would almost require a decision by Hitler not to attack the Soviet Union. Once that happens the likelihood of German victory drops to 10% or less
If you mean an outcome that includes Britain and the Soviet Union, defeated, occupied, and Nazified, maybe 1-2% at best.
If you mean an outcome that included defeat of the above 3 powers plus the United States defeated and occupied, 0%.
SinghKing
Banned
This. And the date of the POD also has a huge bearing on the likelihood of German success.
possible, if the germans hadve advanced quickly at Dunkirk and captured the BEF, or if the germans had planned properly for an invasion of Britain
The Germans halted before Dunkirk for a reason - their advance had stretched their supply lines severely.
An attack on the BEF at Dunkirk without first halting and consolidating could in all honesty have resulted in Germany being (temporarily) beaten back - your forgetting just how heavily fortified Dunkirk was, not to mention a German attack running straight into the concentrated firepower of the Royal Navy (& remember: Even with the RN vessels sat still taking on soldiers, the Luftwaffe was actually pretty rubbish at sinking them when compared to the sheer amount of RN vessels deployed or the number of sorties done...).
It wouldn't have been a easy or pleasant task for Germany to crack Dunkirk....
Deleted member 1487
Except there were no defenders there when the Halt Order came in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk#Halt_order
Had the push continued the Germans would be short on ammo, but the British were unlikely to have pushed their way to the coast. Alternatively having the French surrender at Lille earlier would have probably ended the Dunkirk pocket sooner, as would the 6. Panzer not missing their chance at Poperinge to encircle several British divisions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk#Action_at_Poperinge
The British got very lucky the Germans screwed up and the French fought as hard as they did.
I wonder if the costs of a decade long UK-Germany "cold war" would keep the British from re-opening a "hot war" again. I'd imagine that by 1952-ish things would have settled down to a NATO-Warsaw Pact like coexistence.
Yes there was. Dunkirk, like Calais and Boulogne, had a modest garrison for it's defense. Furthermore, British infantry had taken up positions along the road to Dunkirk on the 23rd. Given the terrain and general exhaustion, the German spearheads were in no condition to take the port before the rest of the BEF could show up and joined in the defense.
This was, in fact, the German opinion shortly after the battle as noted here:
Most of Guderian's armor were tied up until the 28th clearing out Calais and Boulogne. Trying to take Dunkirk before the British could take up positions means leaving those ports alone... which means that those ports are the ones the British escape through instead of Dunkirk.
Last edited:
I gave it 5%
Basically once Sickle Cut had succeeded there was a very short window to 'defeat' Britain through threat of invasion that might have resulted in a change of government (ie not Churchill) before Winston had got a full grip
But its like a week or 2 at most after Dynamo had finished.
Had they sought terms and Britain had taken them then its Germany vs Russia without much of the Support they got From Britain and later the USA
Basically once Sickle Cut had succeeded there was a very short window to 'defeat' Britain through threat of invasion that might have resulted in a change of government (ie not Churchill) before Winston had got a full grip
But its like a week or 2 at most after Dynamo had finished.
Had they sought terms and Britain had taken them then its Germany vs Russia without much of the Support they got From Britain and later the USA
I hate German wanks and everything about the Third Reich but I gave 50% because I could not go higher. Honestly its really a miracle that the genocidal Nazis didn't win. As the British evacuated at the channel, Germany really had won. It was only the fact that Britain decided to fight on that saved the day, and we all know continued British resistance was not a guarantee, imagine Prime Minister Halifax or Churchill dying when he jumped off a bridge to avoid school when he was 5 or whatever.
If Britain had sued for peace Germany would have had 3000 more planes for Barbarossa and 4 more weeks. Barbarossa was ALWAYS going to happen, unless you drastically change the timeline. That campaign would eventually degrade into stalemate. But with even worse 1941 losses, I don't see the USSR gaining the upper hand without Allied support and destruction of the second generation Luftwaffe in 1943.
It would have been very hard for Roosevelt to muster support to help just the USSR.
If Britain had sued for peace Germany would have had 3000 more planes for Barbarossa and 4 more weeks. Barbarossa was ALWAYS going to happen, unless you drastically change the timeline. That campaign would eventually degrade into stalemate. But with even worse 1941 losses, I don't see the USSR gaining the upper hand without Allied support and destruction of the second generation Luftwaffe in 1943.
It would have been very hard for Roosevelt to muster support to help just the USSR.
Deleted member 1487
All that said modern German military scholars seem to think they could have taken it on the march regardless without the Halt Order. In fact the following book debunks much of what was said in your quote:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Blitzkrieg-Legend-1940-Campaign/dp/1591142954/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1
The book uses that quote verbatim and notes that he was looking at the ground after rains on the 28th of May, not the dry ground on the 24th of May. Also a Barbarossa later proved Panzers could operate on waterlogged ground if needed without undue losses; of course the ground was dry when the fighting was going on, so wouldn't be an issue during the moment of decision. The relatively weak forces available (AFAIK 1 Panzer division that had suffered casualties Edit:1st Panzer division) was enough given the situation as it stood.
Edit:
1st Panzer was available for the drive on Dunkirk until it was ordered to halt; the 10th Panzer division was at Calais, the 2nd Panzer split to cover Boulogne and help push on Dunkirk.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes - the problem with the Panzers outrunning the Allies Decision loop was it also out run the German Armies Decision loop as well!
Also 'catching' the BEF means fighting them - as Bocks 6th Army had already discovered suffering heavy casualties in the process of doing this from the Dyle to the coast.
POD's needed:
-Before the BEF evacuates, prevent them from evacuation, somehow.
-Once the WAllies are in the bag, have a freak accident wipe out Hitler, Himmler, Hess, and possibly Goering.
-Have successor agree to no more than 1914 borders minus A-L (demilitarized for 15yrs but still French), plus Austria & the Sudentenland.
--Successor also caps financial bounty at repayment of Versailles reparations.
---Mayhaps, to go eye-for-an-eye, offer Paris the option to lower the reparations bill by declaring all colonies but Algeria to be independent. No luck against the UK until the Germans lower the Alps to fill the Channel.
Doing all that is well under one percent, but still greater than zero.
-Before the BEF evacuates, prevent them from evacuation, somehow.
-Once the WAllies are in the bag, have a freak accident wipe out Hitler, Himmler, Hess, and possibly Goering.
-Have successor agree to no more than 1914 borders minus A-L (demilitarized for 15yrs but still French), plus Austria & the Sudentenland.
--Successor also caps financial bounty at repayment of Versailles reparations.
---Mayhaps, to go eye-for-an-eye, offer Paris the option to lower the reparations bill by declaring all colonies but Algeria to be independent. No luck against the UK until the Germans lower the Alps to fill the Channel.
Doing all that is well under one percent, but still greater than zero.
Except perhaps for Speer, who was at least competent. Unfortunately for Germany, his boss was a lunatic, and so were virtually all the senior state officials he had to work with.
I think your own timeline, Calbear, points to as likely a "German victory" scenario as any: The Germans very likely need some key Allied political collapse (like Stalin losing his mind in your timeline) to sustain some kind of success. Of their own capabilities, a total victory is generally beyond their reach.