What are plausible decisions Nazi Germany could have made to improve their performance in the War?

[Omar04]

Don't attack Soviet Union, don't declare the war against the USA.

Not invading USSR or seeing it's collapse and taking "lebansraum" would be implausible with Hitler. He clearly saw USSR as the base of "Jewish Bolshevism" and the main threat to his ideology and goals.

Plus less ideologically Nazis were growing more reliant on USSR resources as time went on. They wanted to fully control and exploit the resources in the west.

 

[Garrison]

Not invading USSR or seeing it's collapse and taking "lebansraum" would be implausible with Hitler. He clearly saw USSR as the base of "Jewish Bolshevism" and the main threat to his ideology and goals.

Not to mention he wanted control of the industrial resources of the USSR rather than having his flow of oil and food being at the whim of Stalin. Pretty much every suggestion for improving Nazi performance founders on ideology, logistics, economics or a combination of the three.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The Wehrmacht leadership was deeply involved with Hitler's racist and anticommunist politics (which means they probably would still do the foolish thing and antagonize Soviet civilians under their occupation) and wanted to invade the Soviet Union just as badly as he did.

Hitler WAS the Wehrmacht leadership:

Oberkommando der Wehrmacht - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Officially, the OKW served as the military general staff for the Third Reich, coordinating the efforts of the Army, Navy, and Air Force (Heer, Kriegsmarine, and Luftwaffe). In practice, the OKW acted as Hitler's personal military staff, translating his ideas into military orders, and issuing them to the three services while having little control over them.

Similarly he purged the leadership of the army and bribed them into compliance:

Blomberg–Fritsch affair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Halder was among those on the take. What was in their hearts we will never truly know, but so long as Hitler was alive his officers would remain in his pocket.

Killing Hitler only really means that the Germans go after Moscow and ignore the crucial natural resources in the south and the Caucuses, meaning that they get overextended (as they were IOTL when forward units reached the outskirts of Moscow), which ends very badly for the Germans.

If Moscow falls and the Soviet regime unravels, the resources would fall into German hands anyway. Going south overextended their logistics badly, worse than going after Moscow. The forces that barely made it to Rostov in 1941 had to retreat quite a distance and were nearly wrecked by the end of winter, worse than the forces around Moscow.
Not only that, but AG-Center had to give up 5000 trucks to AG-South before Operation Typhoon to help sustain the worse off southern advance. That was a very serious blow to the logistics of the advance on Moscow in 1941. That said even then logistics for the most part were actually fine until the mud started in early October and made it nearly impossible for wheeled vehicles to move even on what roads existed.

The only chance the Germans had of winning the war against the Soviet Union was grabbing the oil fields of the Caucuses, a plan with somewhat low prospects of success, but preferable to not even trying to capture adequate oil sources to conduct further offensives. If the German generals get their way, the Germans vainly try to take Moscow (under the delusion that Stalin would give up if it was taken), fail miserably, and get ground down over the remaining years of the war, their tanks and other motorized vehicles rendered nearly impotent by the rampant fuel shortages.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Taking Moscow wasn't meant to make Stalin give up (though Stalin did say if Moscow fell he'd be forced to make peace), it was meant to disable the economy and government by taking the city that alone accounted for about 10% of Soviet GDP and probably more of it's industrial output as well as forcing the evacuation of the government out of the central area where telecommunications and rail lines converged. Running the war from a near Ural provincial city is going to be very difficult given the communication limitations, not to mention the loss of legitimacy of the regime. Not only that but the fall of Moscow basically means the fall of Leningrad too considering the layout of the rail lines that supplied the city in it's most desperate moments.

 

[tomo pauk]

Not invading USSR or seeing it's collapse and taking "lebansraum" would be implausible with Hitler. He clearly saw USSR as the base of "Jewish Bolshevism" and the main threat to his ideology and goals.

Plus less ideologically Nazis were growing more reliant on USSR resources as time went on. They wanted to fully control and exploit the resources in the west.

(my bold)
Care to elaborate on bolded part?
Nazis will fully control and exploit the resources inthe west, they control the west, and center. To get the resources in the east, they need to cross the eastern border, presumably armed to the teeth.

Not to mention he wanted control of the industrial resources of the USSR rather than having his flow of oil and food being at the whim of Stalin. Pretty much every suggestion for improving Nazi performance founders on ideology, logistics, economics or a combination of the three.

Not attacking the USSR means the demand for oil and whatnot is much reduced. As for the food - Axis-controlled Europe was not UK.
Stalin was eager to ship more raw materials to Germany than Germans were asking for after fall of France.

 

[RedSword12]

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Taking Moscow wasn't meant to make Stalin give up (though Stalin did say if Moscow fell he'd be forced to make peace), it was meant to disable the economy and government by taking the city that alone accounted for about 10% of Soviet GDP and probably more of it's industrial output as well as forcing the evacuation of the government out of the central area where telecommunications and rail lines converged. Running the war from a near Ural provincial city is going to be very difficult given the communication limitations, not to mention the loss of legitimacy of the regime. Not only that but the fall of Moscow basically means the fall of Leningrad too considering the layout of the rail lines that supplied the city in it's most desperate moments.

While the loss of Moscow would be a major blow, it would almost certainly not mean the collapse of the regime. That's not how an ultra-totalitarian regime, based on repression of resistance, works. It doesn't lose its legitimacy if it gets said legitimacy by beating and propagandizing it into its own citizens, rather than by their confidence in the government. Do you really think the Russian people would think, "Oh, Moscow's been taken. Let's keel over and let the Germans kill us because our government doesn't have its capital city anymore. I'm sure it's better than to die fighting." And also note that even with the German army solely in command (which it for all intents and purposes was), taking Moscow is highly unlikely, due to extensive logistical and attrition problems, as well as the large flank to the south, which Hitler correctly ordered secured before it could be exploited by the Red Army. There is little evidence to suggest that the Soviet war effort would have simply rolled over in the case of Moscow falling, which in itself was unlikely.

 

[TheKennedyMachine.]

(my bold)
Care to elaborate on bolded part?
Nazis will fully control and exploit the resources inthe west, they control the west, and center. To get the resources in the east, they need to cross the eastern border, presumably armed to the teeth.



Not attacking the USSR means the demand for oil and whatnot is much reduced. As for the food - Axis-controlled Europe was not UK.
Stalin was eager to ship more raw materials to Germany than Germans were asking for after fall of France.

I mean, all things considered, couldn't there possibly been a Moscow-Berlin Alliance between the two regimes? I mean, Hitler and Stalin both were extremely antisemetic, yet both had oppossing ideologies. I feel like a Moscow-Berlin Alliance could've benefited both countries in a way, if the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany began working closely together, The Axis could've quite likely achieved a near victory. Especially if Hitler just doesn't attack the Soviets, and comes to an agreement with Stalin to split Poland between them (East Poland and West Poland).

 

[tomo pauk]

I mean, all things considered, couldn't there possibly been a Moscow-Berlin Alliance between the two regimes? I mean, Hitler and Stalin both were extremely antisemetic, yet both had oppossing ideologies. I feel like a Moscow-Berlin Alliance could've benefited both countries in a way, if the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany began working closely together, The Axis could've quite likely achieved a near victory. Especially if Hitler just doesn't attack the Soviets, and comes to an agreement with Stalin to split Poland between them (East Poland and West Poland).

That is what was happening between late August 1939 until June 1941, more or less.
Hitler was stupid enough to end up the unholy alliance with Soviets and thus shot himself in the foot.

 

[RedSword12]

I mean, all things considered, couldn't there possibly been a Moscow-Berlin Alliance between the two regimes? I mean, Hitler and Stalin both were extremely antisemetic, yet both had oppossing ideologies. I feel like a Moscow-Berlin Alliance could've benefited both countries in a way, if the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany began working closely together, The Axis could've quite likely achieved a near victory. Especially if Hitler just doesn't attack the Soviets, and comes to an agreement with Stalin to split Poland between them (East Poland and West Poland).

It would have conceivably been beneficial to maintain the alliance, but the Germans, whose regime was based on locking up and shooting so-called "Judeo-Bolsheviks," were never going to be best friends with the Soviet Union.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Stalin had a bunker built for continuing the war if Moscow was taken. And while the loss of Moscow would be a major blow, it would not mean the collapse of the regime. That's not how an ultra-totalitarian regime, based on repression of resistance, works. It doesn't lose its legitimacy if it gets said legitimacy by beating and propagandizing it into its own citizens, rather than by their confidence in the government. Do you really think the Russian people would think, "Oh, Moscow's been taken. Let's keel over and let the Germans kill us because our government doesn't have its capital city anymore. I'm sure it's better than to die fighting." And also note that even with the German army solely in command (which it for all intents and purposes was), taking Moscow is highly unlikely, due to extensive logistical and attrition problems, as well as the large flank to the south, which Hitler correctly ordered secured before it could be exploited by the Red Army. Logistics wouldn't allow the Germans to get to the Urals anyway. Not to mention that much of the Soviet industry was shipped east of the Urals, where it was for all intents and purposes untouchable. There is little evidence to suggest that the Soviet war effort would have simply rolled over if so much of its war industry and resources was still safe.

That's nice and all, but the public wouldn't have tolerance for his leadership if the center of his power was taken. There is a reason he was so frantic about defending the city, same with Stalingrad. He was convinced the public was reaching the end of it's will to continue to operate at the whim of the regime. Said regime only got it's ability to influence it's subordinates and the public at large by appearing to be the only viable game in town; if they look like losers who are falling part it is very likely that it turns into an 'every man for himself' situation á la warlord China. Once that fracture happens there is no putting humpty dumpty back together again. Mark Harrison had a good explanation about that starting in part 3:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8fea/808dd4513db682cc6c15cc1365b925b1263e.pdf

The average person isn't thinking 'oh if I don't operate like a lemming the Germans will kill us all', it comes more a situation of everyone trying to figure out a way to survive themselves and fracturing the regime into various groups of more local warlords. Why sacrifice for Stalin or the idea of the nation when you can control the food supply and live well locally out of the reach of the Germans and what remains of the Stalin regime?

If the Germans only take Moscow and not the Caucuses, their offensive capacity would be reduced, and as such, chances for a German victory would grow slim. Again, think logistics. What suggests that the German logistical situation would improve significantly if they extended their central salient even further? Not terribly much.

Well you clearly haven't read up on the economics of WW2. The Germans got little to nothing out of the Caucasus, which BTW was much further from Germany than Moscow, plus it set them up to be slaughtered well beyond the means of supplying them. I am thinking about logistics and seeing you really don't understand what that actually was in the East.

Moscow is at the end of two double track rail lines plus the best roads in the country while also being closer to Germany than Rostov let along the Caucasus. The roads into the Caucasus were some of the worst in European Russia, while rail lines were quite sparse too. Extending the salient into Moscow cuts off the regional electric generation, takes out 10% of the Soviet industrial output just by taking the city itself, puts a huge hole in the rail network, cuts the centralized telecommunications landlines (Moscow was the hub), removes 4 million people from Soviet control, disrupts the Soviet leadership by forcing them to relocate far east, shows the Japanese that the Soviets are beatable (the top Japanese criteria for entering the war against the Soviets was Moscow falling), and it causes Leningrad to fall because without the double track rail lines running through the Moscow Leningrad could not be supplied over winter.

By not advancing deep into East Ukraine AG-Center doesn't have to lose 5000 trucks it needed before attacking Moscow and seeing AG-South getting overextended and smashed up in the retreat over winter, which would improve their logistic situation substantially over OTL.

 

[Omar04]

(my bold)
Care to elaborate on bolded part?
Nazis will fully control and exploit the resources inthe west, they control the west, and center. To get the resources in the east, they need to cross the eastern border, presumably armed to the teeth.

Hitler saw USSR as the German people's enemy because they were supposedly part of the Jewish conspiracy. Hitler's and nazi ideology more broadly was incredibly opposed to the USSR's ideology and saw them as "Judeo bolsheviks". Also, please show citations that the Nazis could get autarky using the resources of their occupied territories before the USSR invasion.

I mean, all things considered, couldn't there possibly been a Moscow-Berlin Alliance between the two regimes? I mean, Hitler and Stalin both were extremely antisemetic, yet both had oppossing ideologies. I feel like a Moscow-Berlin Alliance could've benefited both countries in a way, if the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany began working closely together, The Axis could've quite likely achieved a near victory. Especially if Hitler just doesn't attack the Soviets, and comes to an agreement with Stalin to split Poland between them (East Poland and West Poland).

Hating Jews isn't really unifying if one believes the other is the head of state of the Jewish conspiracy. Hitler was willing to as he said "walk part of the road with the Russians, if that will help us." But sooner or later the USSR had to be eliminated as the "racial enemy" and preferably when it was weak.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hitler saw USSR as the German people's enemy because they were supposedly part of the Jewish conspiracy. Hitler's and nazi ideology more broadly was incredibly opposed to the USSR's ideology and saw them as "Judeo bolsheviks". Also, please show citations that the Nazis could get autarky using the resources of their occupied territories before the USSR invasion.

There is/was no secret that Hitler hated jews & communists, among other people.
Why would not the Nazis use the resources under their boot before mid 1941?

 

[RousseauX]

I mean, all things considered, couldn't there possibly been a Moscow-Berlin Alliance between the two regimes? I mean, Hitler and Stalin both were extremely antisemetic, yet both had oppossing ideologies. I feel like a Moscow-Berlin Alliance could've benefited both countries in a way, if the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany began working closely together, The Axis could've quite likely achieved a near victory. Especially if Hitler just doesn't attack the Soviets, and comes to an agreement with Stalin to split Poland between them (East Poland and West Poland).

Yes, it's possible, Stalin made serious overtures to join the Axis. WIth obvious goal of partitioning the corpse of the British Empire.

On the long run though the alliance would have fallen apart, but by then both Germany and USSR might have gotten nukes and MAD keeps the weaker of the two partners (most likely Germany) from being devoured.

 

[TheKennedyMachine.]

Yes, it's possible, Stalin made serious overtures to join the Axis. WIth obvious goal of partitioning the corpse of the British Empire.

On the long run though the alliance would have fallen apart, but by then both Germany and USSR might have gotten nukes and MAD keeps the weaker of the two partners (most likely Germany) from being devoured.

Yeah, I can see what you're saying. Personally, when first making this post, I'd thought of various ways of how a near Nazi victory would turn it, although they'd lose still, Nazi Germany wouldn't collapse, If they just didn't attack the Soviets, which in the end, while a faulty alliance. They could've at least benefited by the resoures Russia had, with various trading, the Nazis could've easily just looked at the Russians, and shrugged their shoulders and go: "Nein. zit's not worth zit." and let them go on their merrily way, essentially, live and let live and, sure, the Axis are still defeated but they still manage to stay afloat after the War somehow, I'd imagine as opposed to the Russians establishing the Warsaw Pact in OTL, The Germans go on to establish their own version of it.

 

[RousseauX]

Yeah, I can see what you're saying. Personally, when first making this post, I'd thought of various ways of how a near Nazi victory would turn it, although they'd lose still, Nazi Germany wouldn't collapse, If they just didn't attack the Soviets, which in the end, while a faulty alliance. They could've at least benefited by the resoures Russia had, with various trading, the Nazis could've easily just looked at the Russians, and shrugged their shoulders and go: "Nein. zit's not worth zit." and let them go on their merrily way, essentially, live and let live and, sure, the Axis are still defeated but they still manage to stay afloat after the War somehow, I'd imagine as opposed to the Russians establishing the Warsaw Pact in OTL, The Germans go on to establish their own version of it.

The Soviets eventually would have start ouweighting the Germans because, among other things, the German Empire doesn't have access to natural resources except by trading with the USSR.

But politicians tend to be more flexible than people assume. A Nazi-Soviet pact was possible, just not very high on the ranking of probable events.

 

[TheKennedyMachine.]

The Soviets eventually would have start ouweighting the Germans because, among other things, the German Empire doesn't have access to natural resources except by trading with the USSR.

But politicians tend to be more flexible than people assume. A Nazi-Soviet pact was possible, just not very high on the ranking of probable events.

Yeah, sure, totally!

 

[Omar04]

There is/was no secret that Hitler hated jews & communists, among other people.
Why would not the Nazis use the resources under their boot before mid 1941?

They were? Germany's resource situation was actually worsened by the occupations on the Western Front. Hitler also desired to "settle" Eastern Europe with German "settlers" and wipe out the populations already there. A bit of a two in one by invading the USSR.

Far from solving Germany's raw-material problems, as many historians have
assumed, [47] the booty from the new conquests provided only temporary relief and
actually made the long-term situation much worse. The Reich was now cut off
from much of its remaining overseas trade, a large part of which had come in via
neutrals such as Italy and the Netherlands. As a result, German overseas exports
plummeted from 222,100 tons in March to 7,600 tons in May. [48] Meanwhile, the
conquered territories only added to the growing demand. Based on 1938 figures,
Greater Germany and its sphere of influence lacked, among other items, 500,000
tons of manganese, 3.3 million tons of raw phosphate, 200,000 tons of rubber, and
9.5 million tons of oil! [49] Conservation and synthetics could make up only some of
the difference. [50] The logical choice to take up the rest of this slack was the USSR,
but it remained unwilling and increasingly unable (what with its own military
buildup) to provide the enormous amounts required by the Germans. [51]

That left a third option, an attack on the Soviet Union, the strategy Hitler, for
ideological reasons, preferred anyway. Hitler believed that demolishing the
Bolshevik state "would be like a child's game in a sandbox" [52] and would
essentially solve his remaining strategic and economic problems. Germany would
secure the raw materials it wanted so badly but was increasingly unlikely to get
through trade. Japan would be encouraged to attack the United States. And
England would be left completely isolated; it would be forced to surrender.

From Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941 by Ericson.

 

[TheKennedyMachine.]

They were? Germany's resource situation was actually worsened by the occupations on the Western Front. Hitler also desired to "settle" Eastern Europe with German "settlers" and wipe out the populations already there. A bit of a two in one by invading the USSR.


From Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941 by Ericson.

Damn. That's crazy, just the thought of something like that actually succeding makes me shudder.

 

[Omar04]

Damn. That's crazy, just the thought of something like that actually succeding makes me shudder.

Generalplan Ost - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It was implemented to a degree during the war but the full scale carrying out was planned for after military victory on the East Front.

 

[TheKennedyMachine.]

Generalplan Ost - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It was implemented to a degree during the war but the full scale carrying out was planned for after military victory on the East Front.

Yikes.

 

[TheKennedyMachine.]

Yes, it's possible, Stalin made serious overtures to join the Axis. WIth obvious goal of partitioning the corpse of the British Empire.

On the long run though the alliance would have fallen apart, but by then both Germany and USSR might have gotten nukes and MAD keeps the weaker of the two partners (most likely Germany) from being devoured.

Oh yeah, definetely. ATL, if this happens, the Germans and Russians, once the Cold War kicks in, begin to threaten each other with Nuclear Weapons but decide to not do it, due to the threat of destruction for both countries.