Why is it considered unlikely for Germany to win WW2 in this forum?

[Julian]

The Allies effectively closed down Rhine river traffic IOTL in late February, yet Germany continued to fight for two more months with a very large second front to her east. If Allied air power is already crippling the German economy then the shock is likely to be relatively mild compared to how it would normally be felt.

The Allies halted their transportation campaign in March and April due to victory being imminent. Even so the damage done was so extensive that it knocked the armaments index back to pre-1941 levels, without the means to supply forces in the field with what actually was produced. At Seelow 9th Army had weapons and ammunition for less than a week of combat before it collapsed. Across the board in March and April that the Wehrmacht fell apart in battle. This was after a fairly erratic Allied bombing campaign against transportation which only worked at full steam for about a month and a half from October-November and another from mid January-February. The fact the Wehrmacht only began to collapse in March and April is a result of Speer's stopgap measures, the elasticity of supply, and mistakes on the part of Allied planners.

 

[Riain]

General Motors won't do you any good if you can't put gas in the tank.

And by late 1944, Germany couldn't even provide enough gas to keep what tanks and plans it *did* have properly running. And therein lies another part of the tale of its defeat.

But the USA could, without a second thought!

 

[Riain]

"That's right! That's RIGHT! Take a look! At Ford! And General Fucking Motors! That's right! Look at yourselves! You still have Horses!! What were you thinking!? Dragging us around the world, wasting our lives, and for WHAT!? You stupid ignorant servile scum!!"

The F-bomb may have actually been "freaking" in the series, but that would have been only for the kiddies.

You may have nailed it. But never a truer word spoken.

 

[zoomar]

Different outcomes for specific events, such as the impact of hypothetical Axis victories in the Battle of Britain, Moscow, Lenningrad, Stalingrad, Suez, Midway, Leyte, Normandy, etc are to me legitimate things to discuss, but it would take Axis victories in virtually every key battle fought in WW2 to knock Britain and the USSR out of the war (a complete fantasy)......... and you still have the USA surviving in North America protected by the ocean, outproducing the world, and the largest fleet in the world. There is simply no logistical way Japan or Germany could invade the US.

Reading the sample chapters from book referenced in the OP, my quote above seems to be the premise: that a number of Allied victories (or less-than-worse defeats) were near run things that could have gone in The Axis's favor, and that such defeats could have altered other calculations - not that it would have inevitably led to an Axis victory but that it could have. Also the author (correctly, in my opinion) pins a lot on human error - mostly on the Axis's part. However, evoking "what ifs" about smarter German or Japanese political leaders and field commanders is a parlor game that opens all sorts of butterflies. If Tojo, Nagumo, Hitler, or Goering make better decisions they are different people. What made them different people? Would the events that made them different people change other things as well? I'm much more comfortable with evoking simple bad luck or non-ASB "acts of God" like storms or earthquakes for "what-ifs".

I fully accept the premise that Britain could have been defeated or neutralized by Germany in 1939-40, but a war that ended in late 1940 with Britain accepting some sort of armistice or even just deciding finally to sit on its hands if Hitler just "declared peace", would not be WW2. For that matter even a European War that ended with a sucessful Operation Sealion (I know, I know) would not be WW2. There would no doubt be another war eventually involving the USA and the USSR and that's the war Germany could never win (survive, possibly) but not win.

Once the USSR was invaded, the only way Germany realistically could have won would have been if they weren't Nazis... ie: actually come as liberators to free people from Stalinist and Collectivist terror. As others have noted, the racist Nazi nature of the German regime must be considered a given in any realistic WW2 scenario...that's more basic than military and production strategies. The people of the USSR soon realized they were fighting a war for individual and cultural survival and in that situation, it is basically impossible for Germany to win that war.

In the Pacific, I just don't see a way Japan could parlay any conceivable series of military victories and brilliant strategic decisions in 1941-43 into a situation where Japanese troops would be raisinig the rising sun flag in Los Angeles or even Sydney. In the Pacific, Japanese "victory" is only possible if the US was willing to negotiate and the attack on Pearl Harbor made this a political impossibility

And as others have said, there is the Manhattan project to consider. Once the bomb is developed, Allied (or US) victory is inevitable.

 

[TFSmith121]

Nice summary

snip.

Nice summary.

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

For Germany to win WW2, at least one of the terms "Germany", "win" and "WW2" must be different to the normally accepted definition. In fact, they have to be quite a LOT different. And there probably has to be an extended period of Drakaluck on top of that.

 

[BELFAST]

The op question was could Germany win WWII. It does not say could the National Socialists in Germany win WWII.
It is possible that a Germany without a National socialist government and better economics, depending on how many countries they fought would have a better chance.
If that happened would it still be called WWII.

 

[zoomar]

The op question was could Germany win WWII. It does not say could the National Socialists in Germany win WWII.
It is possible that a Germany without a National socialist government and better economics, depending on how many countries they fought would have a better chance.
If that happened would it still be called WWII.

But the OP makes reference to a book that presumes "Germany" was "Nazi Germany". You are correct, a better led, better equipped, and more sane Germany could perhaps do better than Hitler's Germany, but that was not what the OP brought up. And to be honest, it's really debatable if a monarchsit, nationalist, or republican Germany could do better. Hitler actually had phenomenal intuition about his enemies until about 1941. I wonder if a "more sane" Germany would have taken all the risks that proved to be sucessful for Hitler in 1938-1940.

 

[Saphroneth]

But the OP makes reference to a book that presumes "Germany" was "Nazi Germany". You are correct, a better led, better equipped, and more sane Germany could perhaps do better than Hitler's Germany, but that was not what the OP brought up. And to be honest, it's really debatable if a monarchsit, nationalist, or republican Germany could do better. Hitler actually had phenomenal intuition about his enemies until about 1941. I wonder if a "more sane" Germany would have taken all the risks that proved to be sucessful for Hitler in 1938-1940.

That is indeed a major concern. By all metrics, Germany *was* insane to declare war on Poland. Rational states do not put themselves in a position where all it would take would be a nation on their disengaged border honouring a treaty (which France did) and pressing even a moderate attack (which they did not) would destroy them.
The German ammunition reserves as of October 1939 were nearly exhausted - with hindsight, had France pushed the issue in September they could have won the war right there, since all the German units worth the shells to blow them away were busily eating Poland... and given the economic bind Germany was in, they couldn't do much better under any leader! (About the only deadwood to cut there is the Navy, and if you do that you lose the corresponding British naval buildup in favour of an ARMY and RAF buildup... which ultimately may make things worse.)

 

[jmc247]

That is indeed a major concern. By all metrics, Germany *was* insane to declare war on Poland. Rational states do not put themselves in a position where all it would take would be a nation on their disengaged border honouring a treaty (which France did) and pressing even a moderate attack (which they did not) would destroy them.

Hitler gambled that based on previous behavior appeasing him the French and British would do nothing given he has a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union for a joint invasion of Poland making that war pretty much a cake walk.

Hitler at that point in time looked at his forces and said to himself even if the French and British do declare war the Poles will be dealt with quickly and then we have a one front war of the kind Germany wishes it had in the first World War to deal with the French and British and that with the French out of the war the British would make peace.

He gambled right that Germany by that time had a powerful enough military to beat the French and British on the continent in the West, but he was wrong that the British would make peace after France fell. Perhaps if the BEF had been pocketed he might have been right, but we will never know.

Stalin himself gambled badly at the same time that the French/British and Germans in the West would be fighting for 2-3 years and come 1942/43 he could invade and crush an exhausted Germany and perhaps if he did really well go after the French and British after. Germany finishing off France in one campaign season effectively meant Stalin was facing a war far sooner then he anticipated before his force structure was built up and he didn't want to face that reality.

Hitler was a malignant sociopath in 1940, but he wasn't a demented lunatic yet. He was vastly more dangerous when he was simply a malignant sociopath.

Both, Hitler, Stalin and the Western Allies made big mistakes in the first two years of World War 2 because they looked at the conflict with WW1 goggles on and weren't entirely aware of how much the new war would be different then the old one.

 

[ccdsah]

The op question was could Germany win WWII. It does not say could the National Socialists in Germany win WWII.
It is possible that a Germany without a National socialist government and better economics, depending on how many countries they fought would have a better chance.
If that happened would it still be called WWII.

The OPs actual question which almost nobody seems to respond to, is why is it considered unlikely for Germany to win WW2? Unlikely<>impossible; So while it might be possible for Germany to win some kind of WW2, it's highly unlikely especially after US entry in the war. Certainly more unlikely than Germany winning WW1 for that matter

 

[Gunnarnz]

I would like to congratulate the OP for having kicked off 18 pages of discussion and arguments with only a single post, while also having not replied to any of the comments made in his/her thread.

 

[BeardedHoplite]

I would like to congratulate the OP for having kicked off 18 pages of discussion and arguments with only a single post, while also having not replied to any of the comments made in his/her thread.

What's the harm? I for one learned a bit more about how the US pretty much saved the world.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

Personally I just don't think there is a certainty with anything ... Just imagine a raid on the Supermarine works where one of the guys who checked the build quality of the finished Spitfires ... in OTL he is in the workshop, a bomb near misses the workshop and he is fine ... in an AH TL he is outside and he dies or at best is injured. Because he is not available to check the aircraft a replacement is assigned, the replacement is not as experienced as the first guy and misses something that causes a Spitfire to fail at a vital moment, the Spitfire crashes and the pilot dies. Now if that pilot shot down five LW aircraft during the BoB in reality ... who is going to now shoot down those aircraft or does anyone shoot them down at all? What if one of the German bomber pilots then goes on to strike a vital target, or worst still gets a lucky strike at Uxbridge (11 Group HQ). It may kill Park, it might kill Churchill who visited Uxbridge on a regular basis. What if one of the German fighter pilots goes on to be the highest scoring ace in the LW shooting down 20 British planes at a time when every fighter is vital ... or maybe he does so well he prevents a raid from being broken up and a vital target is hit ... basically what I'm trying to say is it isn't huge events that make the difference, its the little seemingly insignificant events that make the difference and add interest to what if's. Everyone always says you need a POD 10 or 20 or 30 years back that would change things, but if one side changes things the other side will match those changes meaning there are no changes to the end result. That just isn't AH ... its not interesting in the slightest ...

 

[Saphroneth]

What's the harm? I for one learned a bit more about how the US pretty much saved the world.

The US in WW2, for all the faults that the board does go over, was pretty much the nation's finest hour. (Well, finest years.)
Arguably, the driving factor for much of the postwar US politics and foreign policy has been to find an enemy as clear-cut as the Nazis...

And while we quibble over whether the world really needed saving, I don't think there's any question that the world certainly benefited hugely from the efforts of the United States. We definitely wanted saving
Now, if the country could stop being quite so smug about it (while at the same time properly appreciating exactly why and how the US saved the world), that'd be lovely.

 

[BELFAST]

Hitler gambled that based on previous behavior appeasing him the French and British would do nothing given he has a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union for a joint invasion of Poland making that war pretty much a cake walk.

Hitler at that point in time looked at his forces and said to himself even if the French and British do declare war the Poles will be dealt with quickly and then we have a one front war of the kind Germany wishes it had in the first World War to deal with the French and British and that with the French out of the war the British would make peace.

He gambled right that Germany by that time had a powerful enough military to beat the French and British on the continent in the West, but he was wrong that the British would make peace after France fell. Perhaps if the BEF had been pocketed he might have been right, but we will never know.

Stalin himself gambled badly at the same time that the French/British and Germans in the West would be fighting for 2-3 years and come 1942/43 he could invade and crush an exhausted Germany and perhaps if he did really well go after the French and British after. Germany finishing off France in one campaign season effectively meant Stalin was facing a war far sooner then he anticipated before his force structure was built up and he didn't want to face that reality.

Hitler was a malignant sociopath in 1940, but he wasn't a demented lunatic yet. He was vastly more dangerous when he was simply a malignant sociopath.

Both, Hitler, Stalin and the Western Allies made big mistakes in the first two years of World War 2 because they looked at the conflict with WW1 goggles on and weren't entirely aware of how much the new war would be different then the old one.

My point was with better economics Germans resources would be greater and there would have been less wasteful spending on massive civil engineer projects.
Without The National socialist many of the brightest scientists and engineers would not have left Germany.
Also a Germany fighting Russia without the brutality of the SS would have stood a better chance.
They might do better if Italy stayed neutral.
The odds are still against them even if they can avoid going to war on America.

 

[Tom Colton]

My point was with better economics Germans resources would be greater and there would have been less wasteful spending on massive civil engineer projects.
Without The National socialist many of the brightest scientists and engineers would not have left Germany.
Also a Germany fighting Russia without the brutality of the SS would have stood a better chance.
They might do better if Italy stayed neutral.
The odds are still against them even if they can avoid going to war on America.

But that begs the question: if Germany wasn't being led by an ambitious and expansionist (not to mention racist) group such as the Nazis, why would they start another European war?

Unless they're attempting to restore their pre-1914 borders or Brest-Litovsk, there would be zero reason for them to conduct the war in any way resembling OTL World War 2.

 

[Saphroneth]

But that begs the question: if Germany wasn't being led by an ambitious and expansionist (not to mention racist) group such as the Nazis, why would they start another European war?

Unless they're attempting to restore their pre-1914 borders or Brest-Litovsk, there would be zero reason for them to conduct the war in any way resembling OTL World War 2.

Attempting to restore borders is still kind of a sucky reason for a war.

Now, imagine if an alt-revanchist regime had gone for the Sudetenland but not Czechoslovakia. Their economy would be weaker, but they'd appear to be a nation of their word. And then they start pressing for plebiscites on the Danzig question - what happens then?
Whatever it is, it sure ain't WW2 - if only because of the Czechs sitting on most of the southern German border. Taking on the Poles and the Czechs at once, without the assistance of the Skoda works' production for the last several months, might actually be too much for Germany...

 

[Garrison]

But that begs the question: if Germany wasn't being led by an ambitious and expansionist (not to mention racist) group such as the Nazis, why would they start another European war?

Unless they're attempting to restore their pre-1914 borders or Brest-Litovsk, there would be zero reason for them to conduct the war in any way resembling OTL World War 2.

Which is the thing about a more rationally run Germany; even if it were on the belligerent side it could pretty much do everything Nazi Germany did up to and including the Anschluss and if it simply takes the win at that point there's no war. If it hasn't bankrupted itself with military spending its going to emerge as the major economic power in Europe by the 50s; it was only the two world wars that stopped it achieving it's current day status much sooner.

 

[Tom Colton]

Attempting to restore borders is still kind of a sucky reason for a war.

Well, I was trying to scrounge one up, but I suppose if they were hardcore monarchists/imperialists (which was still a possibility if von Papen didn't suck so hard at "boxing in" Hitler and the Nazis), they could stir up just enough nationalist sentiment to demand to not be the whipping boy of Europe and get all their old holdings back. Or something.

Which is the thing about a more rationally run Germany; even if it were on the belligerent side it could pretty much do everything Nazi Germany did up to and including the Anschluss and if it simply takes the win at that point there's no war. If it hasn't bankrupted itself with military spending its going to emerge as the major economic power in Europe by the 50s; it was only the two world wars that stopped it achieving it's current day status much sooner.

Oh, I'm not disputing that, but such a state clearly wouldn't start carving up Poland and driving into Paris, so there would be no WW2 (as we know it) for it to "win".