Nobody would have to believe him but he could have decided not to go to war with the US. History is replete with politicians, especially despots, telling big lies. At the very least he could have privately demanded that Japan attack the Soviet Union as the quid pro quo for Germany going to war with the US. Remember that there is good evidence that Stalin put out peace feelers thought Japan and Sweden in the spring of 1943. If the US were not participating in the war against Germany and was supplying less equipment to the Soviets' and British peace talks in 1943 may have progressed further.
Germany could not win ww2?
- Thread starter Luciano7477
- Start date
Define 'winning'! If the aim is to bulldoze over every country in Europe PLUS the US, PLUS the USSR, AND all at the same time, Germany already lost the war from the start, when the aim was to just 'reverse' the 'injustices' of the treaty of Versailles, they pretty much already won in 1939 bu then they gambled it all away. If the aim was to replace all of the former WWI adversaries with friendly puppet regimes and make them economically vasal states, there are voices out there that say that in the long run Germany DID win that war. It only took them until 1996.
Deleted member 1487
Listen, we've been down similar paths before, I'm seeing no sources I haven't refuted before and I'm not going to get into an opinion slap fight with you again, especially when I know it eventually is going to get to the point of one of us getting frustrated and stopping responding anyway, so I'm just going to say "agree to disagree" and we'll save each other a lot of time and effort as well as the other posters pointless walls of text.
I guess it is what your definition of winning is for the Nazi/Germany if it is controlling mainland Europe via occupation or alliances then yes they could win. Britain would need to be just be defensive maybe to busy fighting Japan or have an armistice with Germany then Germany can concentrate on slowly pushing the soviets back with fortified supply lines or just creating a defensive wall against Russian attack. That would go against all the tactics that had so far been successful for them so probably not happening while Hitler was still in charge.
thaddeus
Donor
German Gen. von Seeckt had laid out a theory of cooperation with USSR and China, assumed informed by their WWI wartime shortages, and of course a desire to not fight a two front war.
AH tried a different tack to stitch together Poland, Japan, et al to battle the USSR, while building a kind of attempt at High Seas fleet delusion.
my speculation is always after the death of Marshall Pilsudski in Poland (no one there to make a decision) and Japan being elusive on signing the original Anti-Comintern Pact, they could have just reverted to "original plan" (also France was trying to reach a deal with the USSR, so further impetus)
thus you have an AGNA with UK and renewed trade and clandestine cooperation with the USSR in the '35 - '36 time period. if they are dealing with the Soviets it likely eclipses the Spanish Civil War and alliance with Italy? but that is hardly a terrible downside.
AH tried a different tack to stitch together Poland, Japan, et al to battle the USSR, while building a kind of attempt at High Seas fleet delusion.
my speculation is always after the death of Marshall Pilsudski in Poland (no one there to make a decision) and Japan being elusive on signing the original Anti-Comintern Pact, they could have just reverted to "original plan" (also France was trying to reach a deal with the USSR, so further impetus)
thus you have an AGNA with UK and renewed trade and clandestine cooperation with the USSR in the '35 - '36 time period. if they are dealing with the Soviets it likely eclipses the Spanish Civil War and alliance with Italy? but that is hardly a terrible downside.
marktaha
Banned
I remember Downing. If Hitler had been killed...ended with him taking command of the army
OK. . .bombing Britain hurt the nation, the Blitz was damaging and unpleasant. The Battle of the Atlantic was also harmful to Great Britain, and had Hitler not invaded the USSR, Germany could have devoted a lot more resources to both the V1 and the V2 program. I think that if Germany were patient and kept hammering away at Great Britain, peace would eventually have ensued. Also, if the Germans were really being smart, eventually they could have just ceased offensive operations against Great Britain and concentrated on extracting resources from its newly conquered territory and building itself up. Let England try to defeat the Nazi Empire all on its own, they could never do that, and would only wear themselves out trying.
Which decision do you think would have given Germany the best chance to defeat the USSR?
The most commonly discussed POD is the Kiev encirclement in September 1941 and a bigger focus on taking Moscow.
Deleted member 1487
Dispersion of forces when Moscow should have been the focus.
I read through the Wikipedia article on the Battle of Kiev and I found this:
Why do you think Glantz is wrong about this particular issue?
Deleted member 1487
That is going to be a long explanation that I'll have to tackle tomorrow. There was another thread here that brought out evidence, courtesy of @per70, showed Glantz got some facts wrong that misinformed his opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
There was really a slim chance before 1941 and that would have required some expert diplomacy. Something Germany was sorely lacking in.
Post 1941 it came down into a war of attrition which Germany was not going to win.
Post 1941 it came down into a war of attrition which Germany was not going to win.
Deleted member 1487
Glantz was wrong about the strength of Soviet forces in front of Moscow in August and September. It would take a while to find the link where Per70 listed the numbers. German forces were also stronger in August and September, not having suffered the heavy losses taken during the Soviet offensive period. Also during 1941 German forces suffered much fewer losses on the attack than the defense, so continuing to attack toward Moscow instead of Kiev or Leningrad in August or September would actually spare losses suffered IOTL during AG-Center's defensive phase, especially given Operation Typhoon's casualty ratios. The only addition by October was 2 full strength fresh Panzer divisions, meanwhile every other part of AG-Center had been weakened during the Soviet offensives toward Smolensk in August-September and both Panzer groups were worn down from attacking toward Leningrad and Kiev despite getting some new equipment in the meantime. Plus in October right at the start the weather changed, which hampered operations throughout the month.
As to the Kiev situation in particular they really offered no thread to AG-Center. AG-South had them largely pinned down and eventually AGS would breakout into Ukraine as they did historically anyway, while 2nd army (not 2nd PG) would be continuing to attack south against Central Front, which would secure the flank of AG-Center against forces in Ukraine. 2nd Panzer Group would be fine with a large open flank given that they had one throughout OTL Kiev campaign and were heavily assaulted by Soviet forces on the flank throughout August-September by forces from the Moscow region while they were pushing on Kiev and never had a problem. Moscow flanking forces were quite a bit stronger than the forces south of AG-Center IOTL, so the flank threat would actually be less if they pushed on Moscow and had an early Vyazma pocket. Plus people seem to forget that the forces along the Moscow axis kept getting more reinforcements and equipment throughout August-September and Ukraine's industry was still pumping out equipment, but that didn't make a difference to the result either. If anything letting Moscow's massive industrial base continue pumping out weapons would be more damaging compared to letting East Ukraine continue to do so for a little while longer than IOTL.
Also Glantz is flat out wrong about the capabilities of Soviet reserve armies over the winter if Moscow falls and does not even factor in the loss in morale and transport/communication abilities if the Soviet capital is lost. Moscow also had the best heated airfields in the USSR (huge for the Wehrmacht in winter), was a huge warehouse for supplies and industry (10% of USSR's industrial output in one city, not even counting the wider Moscow Oblast), plus losing it would mean the USSR loses it's biggest concentration of AAA which then becomes German or at least is removed from the equation, which is rather huge. Plus Moscow had a disproportionate role in Soviet military production, as certain high tech industries were located there. Taking Moscow also cuts off the high capacity rail line to Leningrad, which disrupts Soviet ability to supply or draw reinforcements from that city.
Plus if the capital is lost the Soviet government is pushed back to nearly the Urals, which makes it quite a bit harder to direct the war, while Stalin would likely get heavily irrational and order a bunch of immediate and costly/pointless counterattacks and burn up reserves before they can be properly prepared and equipped, which is really bad news for the Soviets. Not only that, but the Soviet citizens of Moscow would panic like IOTL and flee the city to avoid the Germans (like in most cities in the USSR when they had time to flee) and having 1-2 million refugees flooding the streets and trains would be a humanitarian and military disaster (see the role fleeing French civilians had on disrupting military operation in France in 1940).
Frankly losing Moscow is a blow hard to overestimate in it's impact and Glantz's comment is more wishful thinking than reality.
Assuming all of this happens and the USSR is pushed back past the Urals (and effectively knocked out of the war) would the WAllies continue fighting against an extremely formidable Germany that can now direct almost their entire war machine against them or would there eventually be a peace like in AANW with Germany left in charge of the continent?
Last edited:
thaddeus
Donor
still think they needed to capture Leningrad before the end of 1941, that they cannot maintain three groups for the duration, also the Soviets would throw everything at recapturing it, a "meatgrinder" on steroids?
the later Panther-Wotan line makes some sense as a border/boundary, especially if Leningrad was held also, and would allow them to turn on the other participant in this brawl, the UK, for instance they could conduct operations against Malta as was mooted for 1942?