Why not? Ignoring how they manage to get Stalin to sign a peace in the first place.
Why is it considered unlikely for Germany to win WW2 in this forum?
- Thread starter Realist01
- Start date
Why not? Ignoring how they manage to get Stalin to sign a peace in the first place.
I remember reading somewhere that Stalin was willing to come to some agreement with Hitler, in the period prior to Kursk.
Last edited:
My overall feeling with WW2 in Europe is Germany had to win in 1941-42, any later i think its hopeless.
Germany has to defeat the Soviets really quickly. Like Guderian just blitzes to Moscow and captures it, instead of heading to Kiev, and the Russians for some reason give up.
England perhaps can be brought down with the U-Boat campaign in 41-42
Germany can't let the U.S. get heavily involved or to allow the Soviets to regroup. The victory in the war must be quick, no long total war.
Its a bit of a long shot but not totally impossible.
Germany has to defeat the Soviets really quickly. Like Guderian just blitzes to Moscow and captures it, instead of heading to Kiev, and the Russians for some reason give up.
England perhaps can be brought down with the U-Boat campaign in 41-42
Germany can't let the U.S. get heavily involved or to allow the Soviets to regroup. The victory in the war must be quick, no long total war.
Its a bit of a long shot but not totally impossible.
The Mahnovite
Banned
Germany can quite plausibly win if she only has one front. Get the UK to fold through commerce warfare. Or beat(includes collapse of Soviet leadership if Moscow falls, or any of the Soviet peace offers of OTL) the USSR fast enough(no later than Spring 1943.), lets Germany reorient to producing anti-air defenses, fighters, and later on even SAM-s that would make atomic bombing very hard.
Focusing on Britain first gives Germany best chance of success. Stalin may or may not have been planning a reverse Barbarossa, but it is well known that he was shocked and catatonic for a good while after the Germans attacked. So Germany could afford to not do Barbarossa in 1941. If Germany focuses herself to strike at North Africa, support pro-Axis elements in Iraq/Iran and use her submarine and surface units to choke off Britain from her resources, then even Churchill's spirit will be insufficient to keep the war going. Yes I know, Nazis needed Lebensraum, and they thought of Slavs as scum. But is it inconceivable that Hitler decides to save the Soviets for later? Britain defeated means her being neutral. Maybe some reparations, ceding North Africa.
Focusing on Britain first gives Germany best chance of success. Stalin may or may not have been planning a reverse Barbarossa, but it is well known that he was shocked and catatonic for a good while after the Germans attacked. So Germany could afford to not do Barbarossa in 1941. If Germany focuses herself to strike at North Africa, support pro-Axis elements in Iraq/Iran and use her submarine and surface units to choke off Britain from her resources, then even Churchill's spirit will be insufficient to keep the war going. Yes I know, Nazis needed Lebensraum, and they thought of Slavs as scum. But is it inconceivable that Hitler decides to save the Soviets for later? Britain defeated means her being neutral. Maybe some reparations, ceding North Africa.
Last edited:
There was allegedly the sounding out of a peace offer made in December 1942 which would have included a restoration of the 1914 border. Hitler was probably wise not to take it, after the Soviets caught their breath I could see the war ending sooner if anything.
Soviets later = Defeat
The USSR has time to reform and rebuild, the Germans are screwed. Hitler knew this. Focusing on Brtiain should not have been his focus because that gives time for the USSR to grow unmolested adn icnreases the risk of triggering war with the USA. The window for oppurtunity for Germany was small and when they struck was probably the ebst timing they were going to get. To early, they are too weak, too late, same story.
The Mahnovite
Banned
Without Britain draining away German resources, it may not be a defeat. Also, if Turkey/Iran are in the Axis, Soviets have a bigger front to worry about.
I don't consider that a given. I believe that in absence of Soviet and Wallied victories US population would get tired of ETO and would want focus on PTO. If Germany would manage to get some sort of peace deal I see US walking away from the fight.
It doesn't make sense for Germany to exhaust itself against Britain. The USSR given enough time will steam-roll the Nazis. The USSR's industrial and manpower potential is enourmous. Stalin isn't going to sit there and watch Germany dominate Western Europe. That was his worst fear. You can guarantee the USSR is going to be building itself up and has more than enough capacity when ready to stomp Germany. Once the Soviet Army is reformed and it's officer corps rebuilt, Germany is going to be exremely hard pressed to stop what it will unleash. It doesnt have time to take Britain out (also how they are doing that isn't clear), because the USSR will watch and wait and continue to arm. The Soviets were pushed back due to lack of prepration, experienced officers and poor planning. Once Germany is done with britain, the USSR is going to be ready and they will win. If anything, all it's focus should be the USSR and just keep what's needed to swat Britain off the Continent.
Last edited:
iddt3
Donor
Without Britain draining away German resources, Stalin expects an attack and the German army is possibly stopped right at the border.
The Mahnovite
Banned
Stalin was given repeated info that Barbarossa is coming, in OTL. He refused to believe it.
As a counterpoint to that book allow me to recommend Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, it basically sets out in detail how badly outnumbered the Axis were when it came to industrial and economic capacity compared to the Allies. At the end of the day WWII was industrial warfare. Realistically they just didn't have a chance, and that's without having a leadership that could be charitably described as mentally unbalanced.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
In the movie Battle of the Bulge, there is a scene where a German officer puts a cake on his superior's desk and says we captured this. The superior says so what or words to that effect. The officer says it is from Boston. The enemy has enough fuel to fly a cake across the Atlantic.
I am of the opinion that the Germans were strategically defeated in the Soviet Union by September of 1941 when the failure to eliminate the Red Army in a single, decisive operation forced the Wehmarct into a bloody, prolonged attritional struggle that it was all but foreordained to lose. Your personal mileage may vary.
Germany could possibly knock UK out of the war prior to an invasion of the USSR (through submarine warfare). But then you're just giving the Soviets more time to reform their own military, and they will be marching West given time, and the UK will more likely than not bounce back if it sees a chance. Japan doing anything that isn't losing against the USA is a pipedream once their conflict begins.
The failed German blockade of Britain is perhaps the only instance in history where people's calorie intake actually improved during an attempted starvation.
Note the delay was only a few days and the Alliance was in effect. Stalin is not going to stupidly sit there and watch Germany grow and grow and do nothing. He had anticipated a fight with Germany eventually. He didn't do so in our OTL, he was making moves towards strengthening the Red Army (unforunately this involved killing a good chunk of it's officer corps) and given an extra few years, those reforms will be complete.
Depend on what your definition of win is. Take Poland? Sure. Beat France? Why not. Conquer the Soviet Union? Somebody hasn't taken a look at a map. Perhaps if Barbarossa had a limited goal of toppling Stalin's regime, even then it's a maybe. Invade Britain? Not without a navy you aren't!
WWII for Germany was only winnable if Hitler quit while he was still ahead. He suffered from the same problem as Napoleon and conquerors back to Alexander in that regard. He moved too fast. It should have been Austria in 1938, Sudetenland in 1943, Bohemia in 1948... they'd need a new Fuhrer by now since it's debatable that even a non-stressed Hitler would still be alive.... and Poland in 1953. Don't move too fast. Take something, consolodate your hold and let the people of other nations start to forget you're an aggressor before making your next move.
WWII for Germany was only winnable if Hitler quit while he was still ahead. He suffered from the same problem as Napoleon and conquerors back to Alexander in that regard. He moved too fast. It should have been Austria in 1938, Sudetenland in 1943, Bohemia in 1948... they'd need a new Fuhrer by now since it's debatable that even a non-stressed Hitler would still be alive.... and Poland in 1953. Don't move too fast. Take something, consolodate your hold and let the people of other nations start to forget you're an aggressor before making your next move.