Could German have won World War 2?

Site Issues 2006 Archive Room
#1

Germany can win in the following way:

-Germany continue to bomb British airfield despite Churchill trying to trick Hitler to change his target.

-I believe some tanks are able to travel on water, since most british ships are on the north side of the country, tanks can land on the south side of England with the protection of germany navy and fighters. The Objective for those tanks are to finish off shore defense and let panthers tanks to went ashore safely, then Britain is basically finished.

-With Britain falling in to German’s hand, Americans would be unwilling to attack Europe in a short time, that gives german the time to build heavy defense on England, while starting to invade Russia with better preparation

#2

I think it would have been a lot harder than that as occupying a country with land access is a lot more difficult than invading an Island.

#3

If Germany hadn’t started the war with the Russians, they would have been a lot tougher to beat! We were lucky that we ended up fighting Hitler’s tactics instead of Hitler’s general’s tactics!

#4

I dont think that it would be so easy to invade England. After all Hitler could not dominate the air.

#5

i don’t like "what if"s much but i can say that;they could have kept most of europe and north africa.It’s a good thing that Hitler decided to mess with USSR.They even could have won if Japanese accepted to go for “the north plan” which meaned attacking Russia.But we all know what they did.

#6

I don’t think the Japanese would have made much difference to be honest as the Russians used weight of numbers against the Germans and would have done the same against the Japanese. Also the Chinese would have been between the Russians and the Japanese and were already fighting them so the Japanese would have struggled to reach Russia anyway.

I agree that it would have been harder without the attack on Russia however it wasn’t just Britain but all the commonwealth forces fighting So it wasn’t as one sided as somepeople think.

#7

Ok, well I have to politely disagree with you FW 190 pilot for the following reasons:

In order to organise a co-ordinated attack on the Island of England, Germany needed to get command of the Air AND sea. The Kreigsmarine lost a good number of ships in the Norwegian Campaign and its numbers were vasty inferior to the Royal Navy. The Germans may have gained control of the air but the invasion fleet would still have taken massive casualties crossing the channel. The Royal Navy had plans to send its ships into the Channel if an invasion was imminent to completely disrupt the landings.

The Wehrmacht did experiment with inflatable tanks but they were not ver y successful and were used in the Invasion of Russia to get across the River Bug, there were too few of them to make a difference :slight_smile:
Once those tanks got ashore well they would need infantry support as experience has shown that tanks on their own quickly become sitting ducks on a battlefield.
As for the Panther, well it didnt come into production until 1943.

#8

So where is this mysterious Island of england ?

#9

Its to the East of the nearly as mysterious Island of Ireland, home of the free loving and free drinking Leprechauns !!! :slight_smile:

#10

The short answer is yes and no. Operation Sea Lion probably could have landed German troops on the British Isles. However, the Royal Navy would have been able to choke off the German’s cross-channel supply lines and eventually force the surrender of the beachead.

Other facts worth mentioning, although the Royal Navy did have a near 10:1 advantage in hulls over the Kreigsmarine, most of the R.N.'s assett were deployed in the Atlantic or elsewhere after the fall of France. It would have taken some time to recall those ships to defend against a cross-channel invasion.

Also, the Luftwaffe did not have the overwhelming advantage that the RAF thought they did during the Battle of Britain, however this belief caused the RAF reserves to be called up and Spitfire production to be cranked up, and it gave a boost to Radar deployment as well. All of which helped doom any hope of an invasion of Britain.

#11

I think this depends on what one considers winning the war. Germany dominating the Earth? Don’t see how this would be possible under any circumstances. Controlling Europe as a whole? Yes I think this was possible. That being said, much of this would hinge on securing Western Europe.
Firstly, if Germany (namely Hitler and Goering) had not bungled Dunkirk so badly they could have captured much of the BEF. This would have left England greatly exposed. Second step would be to eliminate the RAF. If the Luftwaffe had concentrated on military objectives (airfields, radar station etc) instead of civilian targets, they could have suppressed the RAF more than enough for an invasion. In fact they almost did just this. Most historians give the RAF 2-4 weeks of combat efficiency before Germany switched to civilian targets. As we all know, actually getting the troops to the shore would have been the main problem. The actual cross channel invasion would need to have come with great speed after the fall of France. If all these factors had gone in Germany’s favor I believe they could have taken England. This would have prevented any Normandy type invasion.
Hitler would have more than likely still invaded Russia. I really cant see then defeating the Russian’s even with more supplies and men. The battle on the Russian front would probably have come to a stalemate. From this point it’s hard to say what would happen. Really depends on the politics. However I think Germany could have secured Europe.

#12

I think Germany could easily of taken England. If the Luftwaffe only continued attacking the RAF for just a few more days the RAF would of completely been destroyed. The main reason why the RAF was so successful in destroying the Luftwaffe, while the RAF was greatly outnumbered, was because of radar.

Radar was invented sometime around 1938 by some English Scientists. After completing some successful trials, they built many many radar towers along the coast of England and up to Scotland. Thus they could detect any airplanes, the speed and hieght, as they where crossing the English channel. This meant that the RAF did not have to just fly around and wait for the Germans, which they could never have been able to afford. They could also choose which planes at which bases would go up to meet the Germans. One guy in the German air force avised the guy who was operating the Luftwaffe (dont know his name) to bomb these towers because he thought that they had a very important purpose, they did bomb them once and only put them out-of-order for a while. This proved to be one of the very serious mistakes made by the Germans. They could of easily taken England if they could of just bombed those towers.

I will be posting a topic about radar in WW2 in the British forum.

#13

Another good question…Do you think Stalin would have gone to war with the Germans? The Nazi’s and the Communist didnt like each other for sure. But I dont think Russian’s would have gone to war with Germany. What really scary would be if the Russian and the Germans had made an alliance. Pretty doubtful but they both were land hungry. :shock:

#14

I think to detur a Normandy invasion Hitler should have let the jet program go when he heard of it. This would have given him advanced fighters with some kick arse pilots that would have thwarted off the Allied bombing offensive which aided in Normandy.

I think had Hitler let his Generals plan things they may have had a slight chance in winning I mean I doubt it, but it would have made it harder for us. Also if he didn’t declare war on the U.S. and instead conquered Europe then we woulda been in a sticky situation when it came to finding allies over there plus the Pacific on top of that. Perhaps all those things combined together but I guess we will never know. :roll:

#15

Hitler was a moron as far as military strategy. Stalingrad proved that. If he would have stayed out of it…things would have been much harder. Hitler should have stuck to what he did best…motivation.

#16

Absolutely correct; Hitler was his own worst enemy. I believe that he lost the war on September 3, 1939, the day France and England declared war on Germany. It was Hitler’s reaction to this that was fatal, and demonstrated his utter lack of understanding of the world situation and the real strength of his potential enemies. His reaction was to issue Operational Order No. 2 For The Conduct Of The War, which placed German industry on a ‘war footing’ in breadth but not in depth. By this, I
mean he ordered all war-capable industry to start production, but not to
go all out. No 24-hr. production. He wanted to keep to normal 8-hr. daily production schedules, so as to ‘not alarm the civilian population’. Strange
sentiment for someone who wanted to conquer the world. ‘Total’ war would not begin until after Stalingrad, when it was too late. How many more planes, tanks, guns and submarines would he have had if he had
given the proper order?
Had he given the correct order, he probably would have had several hundred more aircraft for the Battle Of Britain, which would have overwhelmed the RAF. With air superiority, they could have conducted several fake invasion exercises, drawing the Royal Navy into the Channel, where the Luftwaffe could sink them. Once the Royal Navy was
crippled, Operation Sea Lion could begin. By 1941, Hitler would have had several thousand more tanks for Operation Barbarossa. With an extra Panzer Army allocated to Von Runstedt in Army Group South, Guderian wouldn’t have had to come to his rescue at Kiev. The Battle Of Smolensk was the first indicator that the Germans did not have the strength to defeat Russia. If Guderian’s 2nd Panzer Army had stayed in place on the Moscow highway, Moscow would have fallen by the end of September. While this in itself would not have won the war, it would have wiped out a large proportion of Soviet industrial might, and brought Germany to at least parity in the war. In the spring of '42, Army Group Center likely would have gotten within bomber range of Chelyabinsk, the famous ‘Tankograd’. Bombing Chelyabinsk and the nearby southern Ural cities would have been disasterous for the Russians. The war in Russia would probably end in the spring of '43.
Meanwhile, the best America could do was North Africa. With Britain out of the war, the Italian Navy would control the Mediterranean, and Rommel could be heavily reinforced. Germany would have already taken the Middle East oil fields by this time. America wouldn’t be ready for invading Europe before 1944, giving Germany time to consolidate and move forces
west to France and England.
I suppose the best chance for America was to hold onto northwest Africa, and use B29s to drop the Bomb.

#17

I thought, not a chance. Adolf Galland was wrote in his book “First and last” such thing: German bombers havn’t such radius of action to destroy industry zones of England. And German havn’t a fleet wich can compare with British. And only one country have a swimming tanks in the WW2 - it was an USSR. And if the Hitler have a swimming tanks? La Mansh - is not a river, and swimming tank is paid armor for swimming abilities. It was only light tanks… Hitler had no choice, but making suicide attack to Russians. Very many facts pointed to USSR was ready to invade Europe. Attack of Hitler canceled plans of Soviet command and Stalin, but at the end of War Zhukov was said to Stalin such a phrase: “Go to the ocean, untill our guns not lost it’s hot”… But Stalin decline it, the losses of this, unexpected for Stalin, scenario of War was very big, and the power of Red Army was heavily reduced.

#18

Incorrect. The Guderian, Mannstein and Galder was wrote in theirs dairys - tanks havn’t a resourses of engines of tanks. In august 1941, Guderian was send a request - 1500 tanks engines must be replaced after using it in terrible enviroment :D. But he recieved only a 300… Do you take a geographic map in hands? Distance between Ural and Moskow - more than 4000 km. And Ural isn’tast industry zone of Russia, most powerful Industry was in Siberia, city Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Novosibirsk. Can you tell me at least one bomber with such radius? And with witch method Hitler can bomb Ural? The steppes near Volga (in plan of Hitle - placement of his bomber to destroy the Ural) had no landings site, and no rail communications. Planes need an ammunitions and fuel. And deliver it 2000 km from nearest railway - it’s very expensive. One air strike from Volga to Ural cost like 20 to England.

#19

This is an opportunity for me to research where the major Soviet war industries were located after the great move of the factories from the
Ukraine. Until I complete this research, I will concede your points about
distance and air-strike radius. Only one point I will contest, and that is the effect of increased ‘total war’ production on panzer forces. It is true that 1500 tank engines needed to be replaced, out of a total of 2800 tanks. This was partially caused by the improper oils used, which would freeze solid at minus-40 degrees centigrade, and the subsequent breaking of camshafts, valves and piston rods. The rest was caused by over-use of the tanks due to there being NO strategic reserve of tanks!
The idiot Hitler thought this was going to be an eight-week war! It makes one wonder if he had a spy network at all. Again strange behavior from a dictator who stated way back in 1925 that he wanted to conquer Russia.
All that time to plan, and he did nothing! He simply accepted the only war plan put together by General Marcks in 1940 for Barbarossa; without seeking any other opinions. He must have been lulled into complacency by his easy victory over France, and the poor Soviet performance against the Finns.
With total war production in effect from September '39, however, German battle tank ( PzKw III’s and IV’s ) production would have provided
a total of over 5400 tanks; enough to provide replacements for the 1500
broken-down tanks AND provide Von Runstedt with the force he needed to
surround Kiev, with several hundred left over. The capture of highly-industrialized England in 1940 would have only increased production potential. If Moscow was taken in September-October, fewer tanks would be exposed to the below-zero conditions that began in November. The central questions then become, after taking Moscow, how far could the Germans get in 1942, how much of the Red Army and Soviet industry would remain, and were Soviet oil reserves all concentrated in the Caspian Sea area, or where there others further east? Without oil, even the enormous Red Army would be nearly helpless.

#20

Abosolutely disagree. The Hitler didn’t know simply arithmetic. The Soviet Union is country with size of 2 materics, Asia and Europe. Length - about 10.000 km. Medium speed of tank(without supply) - 15 km/h, at Russians roads - not more than 8-10. 100 days only to rich the last resourse base of SU, without stops, with unlimited fuel, on ideal line and without battles. Most territory (about 75%) unpassed for Germans tanks with thin tracks. Railway is easy to explode. Maximum bomber range is about 1500-1800 km. He was planned eight-week war? Even schoolboy can told you - this is madness. But more time? In long war, most critical factor is a resource base. Soviet Uniaon have a unlimited resorces in Siberia - oil, ore, wood, aluminum… anything. The source of Hitlers oil - was a small base in Ploeshty, Romania. He made sintetic fuel with cost 6-7 more than normal and used the potato grass to replace wood. And at the main resource - human resource - Hitler couldn’t even compare with SU. Bismark left to Germans letter when died - to not make a war with Russia. For any small European country such war always fatal…

Nice picture, about how Hitler ruled the war: Soviet soldiers in his cabinet:

http://victory.rusarchives.ru/catalogue/photo.php?photo_id=344&id=17