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

[TFSmith121]

Again, nicely done...

The UK saved the world by SURVIVING, and thereby providing the means to allow the USA to come to grips with the Axis, both in Europe and the Pacific (only the Central Pacific Drive was an All-American affair). That, and providing a level of war mobilization that by the last six months of the war was probably much more than the UK should have been asked of or provided. The USSR saved the world, at incredible cost, by destroying the army that was the only real threat to the whole world.

and


As a Tolstoyan, I really have to be saying this, as I agree with you that environmental forces WILL rule the day eventually. But the history of WWII has shown that not so much Great Men as Competent Men (or the lack thereof) DO make a difference.

ALL of the Axis rulers and Stalin had various degrees of incompetence. Japan in fact didn't really have a central ruler at all, just a series of factional warlords. Benny the Moose was a complete fool. Hitler was an Anti-Christ and had an artistic temperament (as one poster said) and a corresponding illsuitedness to rule. Stalin was a compulsively rational super-paranoid mass murderer.

So yes, I'd say that Japan, Italy, Germany, and the USSR were ALL crippled by their leadership. In the case of the USA and UK, their Great Men made their greatness known by letting the generals do their job (often grudgingly by Churchill, tho).

I will say the following - the opposite of the "great man" is probably the "evil man" as in so flawed as to consider war a rational policy choice and to be good enough at it that it lasts, and those same flaws lead to the incompentence outlined nicely above.

As far as the US role in the conflict, with all due credit to the UK for making it a fight in the first place and the USSR for sustaining that fight, the US did, in fact, win the war - otherwise, I think there is a real chance for a 3-way stalemate in Europe in 1940-41 that could have lasted significantly longer than 1945...and the possibility of an events akin to the Peace of Amiens and/or the 1917 Revolution are not beyond the realm of the possible. There were a tremendous number of moving pieces between September, 1939 and December, 1941, after all.

Likewise, without the US involvement, Imperial Japan would, presumably, had a chance of maintaining its regime, with unforseable impact on the history of (at least) Northeast Asia. Ending that possibility is no small thing; just ask the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, etc.

Best,

 

[AdA]

An alternative to the great man theory is the "great ruling class theory"
If you can get a social group with a significant number of capable people sharing a common view in power in a society you have steering power over the course of history.
Portugal for example, was able to punch above its weight for a century because the merging of the low aristocracy and the bourgeoisie that ruled it in the Avis dynasty was such a group.
Prussia, and then Germany, enjoyed for a century (1815/1915) the advantage of an efficient ruling class motivated by post 1812 nationalism.

The Nazi elite was essentially a rotten group from which no sane or capable leadership could have emerged, and Germany's collective mind between the wars was so conflicted that it would be difficult to get a sane group to power in time for an alternate WW2.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

How does that have any relevance to a discussion on Nazi Germany's chances of winning WW2?

The USSR, USA, and UK vastly outnumbered and outproduced Germany, Italy, and Japan. That isn't pro-American bias, it's a fact.

Those three vastly outproduced Italy and Japan, but from what I've seen Germany was outproducing the UK and on level with the USSR. The USSR and the US were to big and powerful to fall, but had the Axis nations kept to attacking the UK and China I think they could have won. The moment Hitler decided to invade Russia he lost. The moment the Japanese decided to attack Pearl Harbor they lost again. Those were major blunders.

 

[usertron2020]

Those three vastly outproduced Italy and Japan, but from what I've seen Germany was outproducing the UK and on level with the USSR. The USSR and the US were too big and powerful to fall, but had the Axis nations kept to attacking the UK and China I think they could have won. The moment Hitler decided to invade Russia he lost. The moment the Japanese decided to attack Pearl Harbor they lost again. Those were major blunders.

The Germans lacked the air force and navy to come to grips with the UK, and could only produce X amount of war material before their chromium and tungsten run out, and then no more weapons. Trying to fight the British Empire when you only have the limited resources of Eastern and Central Europe (plus France) is a long term fail.

100 million Japanese cannot defeat 450 million Chinese when in the end the only thing the IJA has to offer the Chinese is a peace worse than Kublai Khan's Mongol Conquest. The Mongols married their Chinese women and brought them home with them. The Japanese slaughtered their rape victims and their infant children! The Chinese have the same choice as OTL's USSR. Fight or die.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

The Germans lacked the air force and navy to come to grips with the UK, and could only produce X amount of war material before their chromium and tungsten run out, and then no more weapons. Trying to fight the British Empire when you only have the limited resources of Eastern and Central Europe (plus France) is a long term fail.

100 million Japanese cannot defeat 450 million Chinese when in the end the only thing the IJA has to offer the Chinese is a peace worse than Kublai Khan's Mongol Conquest. The Mongols married their Chinese women and brought them home with them. The Japanese slaughtered their rape victims and their infant children! The Chinese have the same choice as OTL's USSR. Fight or die.

I think your numbers are a bit off, but what I was suggesting was that the Japanese could try to make peace after annexing more of China. Like they did after they invaded Manchuria.

 

[usertron2020]

I think your numbers are a bit off, but what I was suggesting was that the Japanese could try to make peace after annexing more of China. Like they did after they invaded Manchuria.

My number are not off by much. The 100 million number of Japanese is solid, they used it often enough in their own propaganda. I'll grant being flexible on the 450 million number of Chinese, but if anything the population numbers for them could well be higher. There are (and were) a LOT of Chinese.

As to peace deals, the invasion of China was as much an act of aggression by the young "hothead" class of Imperial Japanese Army junior officers who routinely assassinated their own colonels, generals, and politicians when they were given orders that they didn't like. Such as being told to halt because the government in Tokyo was trying to, or had succeeded in, making a peace treaty with the "hated enemy". Whoever they might be. After the start of the Bushido Era, the IJA didn't stop until it WAS stopped, such as in the late 30s Siberian incursions.

If the warlords back in Tokyo had actually TRIED to seriously negotiate, or God forbid, succeed in making some kind of peace with the Chinese of the KMT (doubtful, as any KMT leader who did so would himself be quickly removed), they'd still face the intractable CCP. And assassinations back home in Tokyo, with quite possible coup attempts (even successful ones), resulting in the war starting up again. IF, in fact, the army high command could ever get the junior officers to obey an order to cease combat against what would still be a mushily resisting Chinese nation. I can't really see the Japanese troops agreeing to evacuating the Yangtze River region, the very heart of China. Without that, China is Tibet, the western deserts, Chung-King, and parts of the northern plains. In short, a failed state.

If you look at the hard numbers of the major military actions between the IJA and KMT starting in the invasion all the way to 1944, you'll notice that while until 1941 the IJA continued to advance, each major battle (all but a few of them Japanese tactical victories) resulted in massive casualties for both sides and at reasonably even numbers! If the Chinese trade casualties with the Japanese at anywhere near a 1:1 ratio, then longterm, the Imperial Japanese Army in China is dogmeat.

 

[modelcitizen]

Am echoing this argument quoted below, "Murder By Numbers," and it's even more stark when you look at a map. When you look at a globe and compare Germany with the vastness of the USSR, the United States of America, and British Imperial domains such as the Raj, you can tell how much Germany was punching above its weight in our timeline for World War Two.

In short: The numbers were stacked ridiculously heavily against it.

In our world, Germany got ridiculously lucky. In the Battle of France, for instance, the raw numbers and equipment were against it. Germany succeeded in a quick decisive victory through a mixture of French incompetence (especially towards the higher echelons of French leadership) and a hefty dose of luck.

Similarly, they also got very lucky against the USSR in a strategic sense (due to severe issues with Soviet doctrine, preparation, and even managing to achieve strategic surprise on such a large scale despite the warnings of many Soviet agents.)

Even with so much luck,though, the numbers were still very much against them. They never came close to knocking either Britain or the USSR out of the war, let alone both.

 

[machine3589]

Come to think of it, you might define Germany winning WW2 if someone manages to off Hitler and makes peace with the Allies. It would require giving up on the majority of gains made in the war, but if it would prevent Germany from being cut in half and being reduced to rubble then that would certainly count as a win of a sorts.

Of course, with no acess to a crystal ball that shows alternate realities (which is the greatest problem we have on this site as well ), Hitler would probably be remembered as a hero and the men who killed him and made peace with the Allies would be remembered as traitors...

 

[Michele]

It would require giving up on the majority of gains made in the war,

Make that all and then some. Britain was not going to come to terms without Czechoslovakia being reintegrated, let alone all the rest. It's also unlikely that a continuation of the Nazi regime would be tolerated, or an armed Germany. Damages would be demanded, too. In short, no way to define this as any kind of victory - save for:

but if it would prevent Germany from being cut in half and being reduced to rubble then that would certainly count as a win of a sorts.

...there's that, yes.

 

[Clandango]

Has it Ben decided here what would qualify as winning for Germany? The Nazis did not tend to go for half measures and were constantly changing what they thought of the racial status of non-Jews.

 

[Saphroneth]

Has it Ben decided here what would qualify as winning for Germany? The Nazis did not tend to go for half measures and were constantly changing what they thought of the racial status of non-Jews.

I'd say the minimum requirement for Germany to have "won" would be that Germany is larger than it was in August 1939 when the peace treaties are all done and dusted (and when Britain doesn't have short term plans to resume the war as soon as practical, of course). That is, it has gained territory AND not surrendered or otherwise lost - uti possedis as of the Phony War would be pretty much the minimum threshold for "victory".
Of course, a short war with Germany gaining Danzig (or Poland) and no major escalation of the conflict wouldn't really be something most people would recognize as WW2...
Does anyone else have a more or less stringent definition of victory?