Could the Third Reich have been more successful than OTL?

[Elfwine]

Assuming minimal changes to the other powers (including Italy and Japan) - responses made in response to different German policies from '33 on are one thing, but "Churchill turns into a beef eating surrender monkey" is not.

This is looking mostly at the issue of logistics and production, as those are the areas that would need to change to give the Wehrmacht a better situation.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Mussolini staying neutral (or at least not joining up with the Nazis) would definitely help them. I can't help but think that not diverting their resources to sideshows like North Africa and the Balkans would strengthen the Germans in the East.

 

[Elfwine]

Mussolini staying neutral (or at least not joining up with the Nazis) would definitely help them. I can't help but think that not diverting their resources to sideshows like North Africa and the Balkans would strengthen the Germans in the East.

How much would the forces in North Africa and the Balkans have added to the forces already sent on Barbarossa though?

 

[Awilla the Hun]

Maybe a few more tactical victories in some places, with their ungodly degree of luck holding out for a bit longer, but apart from that, no.

 

[Elfwine]

Maybe a few more tactical victories in some places, with their ungodly degree of luck holding out for a bit longer, but apart from that, no.

Even with a POD as far back as the Nazis seizing power?

Just curious here, I posted this to see what people think and what the basis is.

 

[Arachnid]

If only they had built the Maus they would have won.

 

[Lazzars]

How much would the forces in North Africa and the Balkans have added to the forces already sent on Barbarossa though?

earlier Barbarossa, a whole extra army to send to the east, not having to use vital manpower to police the balkans (also the possibility of brow beating the Yugoslavs into joining them)

more tanks, more planes, less transport to support the logistics.

sure, the Germans would have had to cover their flank from the Greeks but it's a small price to pay in comparison.

 

[Dalmighty]

Let Nazi Germany collapse economically from suddenly deciding not to invade Western Europe after taking apart Poland.

It'll do better than in OTL.

Then pray the Soviets don't come a' knockin and form an Anti-Communist league so that Germany has better relations with the rest of the world.


But seriously,
In short, any Nazi 'Victory' would really require eliminating the Soviets and at the same time, keeping the US out of the war. The first requires copious amounts of luck for the Nazis and the USSR to make some more serious mistakes during the war.
The second, you could butterfly a US declaration of war on Germany away by having Hitler not signing the Tripartite Pact. The US would be at war with the Japanese though. After the Japanese are defeated, the Americans would most likely join in against Germany.

I suppose you could make relations between the USSR and the USA much worse so that the Americans wouldn't be inclined to help the Soviets.

And ensure that the the 'Allies' don't include the USSR by letting the British bomb the Baku Oilfields just to screw the Soviets over even more.

This would leave the Germans winning the Eastern Front but leaving them horribly overextended. But if the Americans don't join in, then they have a good chance of surviving.

 

[gridlocked]

I choose the maybe option, but is says small chance. The yes option is written as a joke.

I think Germany had a very serious chance to win the war once France Collapsed. What would have happened if there was a storm in the English Channel and thus no Dunkirk? What would have happened if Churchill was not PM? What if Hitler waited till the war in the west was over to attack the Soviets? (Stalin was too cautious to roll the dice and attack Germany).

German beat the Russians in WWI and that is without the Czar decapitating half his officers.What if Hitler, the lying politician, marched into Russia as a liberator and then once the Soviets collapsed went back on his word?

Even Henry Kissinger believes that Hitler could have won WWII if he used the Munich Crisis to declare war on Czechoslovakia in 1938. By the way as I have never seen anybody develop Kissinger's insight into a TL here.

So in short yes, once the Nazis were significantly outgunned and outproduced they could not have won the war, but that was years into the second World War before that happpened.

 

[King Thomas]

Hitler would have to stop being such a racist anti-Slavic asshole, or put off war until he has nukes (with no war, the US would not start developing nuclear weapons.)

 

[Elfwine]

I choose the maybe option, but is says small chance. The yes option is written as a joke.

Intentionally. "The Nazis had a good chance of beating the industrial power of most of the world!" is a joke. That's not to say all victory scenarios are, of course.

I think Germany had a very serious chance to win the war once France Collapsed. What would have happened if there was a storm in the English Channel and thus no Dunkirk? What would have happened if Churchill was not PM? What if Hitler waited till the war in the west was over to attack the Soviets? (Stalin was too cautious to roll the dice and attack Germany).

German beat the Russians in WWI and that is without the Czar decapitating half his officers.What if Hitler, the lying politician, marched into Russia as a liberator and then once the Soviets collapsed went back on his word?

"I'm a liberator, nevermind that my entire platform is based on the idea that you're subhuman."

Even Henry Kissinger believes that Hitler could have won WWII if he used the Munich Crisis to declare war on Czechoslovakia in 1938. By the way as I have never seen anybody develop Kissinger's insight into a TL here.

Even? When did he become the defining authority?

So in short yes, once the Nazis were significantly outgunned and outproduced they could not have won the war, but that was years into the second World War before that happpened.

What would you define as significantly outgunned and outproduced?

 

[Hkelukka]

I wouldnt say its "easy" for it to be, but all that i know about the war point it to being a "close ass call" more than 10 times.

First, more succesful is such a broad term.

Survival was about 90% likely (stop before poland, tone down the economy, go through some hardships, still be rememberd as the reich that unified the people, more or less, nazi germany would survive.)

Beyond that, the ultimate goal of "controlling everything on the planet" was maybe 1:100 at best.

But a meaningful dominance over continental europe was, after Poland i'd say 25% certain, after France about 75% chance, then along came Barb and we know how that went.

But like I said about this topic earlier, first you define "succesful" then you define earliest POD and then you get your answer.

 

[Elfwine]

But like I said about this topic earlier, first you define "succesful" then you define earliest POD and then you get your answer.

Earliest POD: Nazi dominance of power in Germany.
Successful: Basically "could it have done more" - conquered further before falling (at roughly the same time as OTL) or lasted longer (by more than a few months).

I'm not testing a particular scenario, just seeing whether people think the Nazis did about as well as their resources permitted, or if different policies would have enabled them to be closer to their goals.

 

[Riain]

I think that playing the percentages early on can make the 3rd Riech more successful. A drop tank available on the Bf 109 in August 1940 takes the air fight deeper into Britian, giving fewer quiet sectors for FC to regroup. Destruction of Liverpool instead of Coventry disrupts imports through the most important port in Britain. A few thousand more trucks available in the east in May 1941 could see Barbarossa kick off a few weeks earlier and reach deeper into Russia. More active weapons development (eg. more powerful tank guns) in 194-1 could see the Germans win a few more engagements in the east, again allowing them to reach deeper into Russia.

Who knows what these extra successes could have led to. Maybe Oconnor doesn't take the offensive in Africa and Rommel never goes to Africa, maybe the Moscow strategic transport rail hub falls and Russia is crippled so the 1942 offensives finish the Soviets off. Maybe, maybe, mightbe, mightbe, coulda, shoulda, woulda.

 

[Hkelukka]

With the resources they had, in the time that they had (from about 33-36 to 1945).

They could have most likely conquered continental europe, put SU on the defensive waiting to rebound and came to a peace with the UK. Effectively splitting europe into two spheres. Axis + allies, UK/US + their allies, where Axis control continent up to turkey but not including turkey and up to roughly where the prewar polish east border was.

Beyond that a new war will almost certainly pop up, or a very uncomfortable cold war.

So, they could have, in my opinion, secured continental europe under a single ruler not including Turkey, SU(closer to modern day Russia) and UK.

Thats about the height they could do without ASB intervention. They might be able to subdue UK or SU but unlikely both, best they can come to is a cold peace with all 3 major parties still verymuch able to resume the war.

Not sure if the world of an axis victory ever again lives in a peace we might consider to be a peace. We could conceivably be looking at a type of eternal war. Imagine a German version of FOX with a "war on the evils of socialism" lasting for 60 years and you get an idea of what a Axis timeline looks like.


Wait.... Isnt that the western world?...

 

[Beedok]

If only they had built the Maus they would have won.

Maus vs. KV-VI!

 

[gridlocked]

Intentionally. "The Nazis had a good chance of beating the industrial power of most of the world!" is a joke. That's not to say all victory scenarios are, of course.

Technically if you had a scenario where Hitler in search of super-weapons approved massive research budget to the A-bomb, like he did for several other projects, while the allies ignored the weapon as impractical in terms of the time-frame of this war, then under these conditions Hitler might of pulled off a victorious stalemate where he possessed most of Europe.

"I'm a liberator, nevermind that my entire platform is based on the idea that you're subhuman."

It was pretty clear what Hitler believed from Mein Kampf yet he was able to successful lie to people for years. "If anybody thinks I want war, they do not understand me. I served and was gassed in the trenches of WWI." Is pretty typical of the rhetoric he used when he was talking to non-supporters, who were foreign.

Even? When did he become the defining authority?

I do not love Kissinger's Realpolitick, but he is the leading proponent of Realpolitick in the West and a very good scholar. Both because he is a German Jew and because currently serious scholars do not do alt-history I have to read between the lines. He openly opines that Hitler would have been better off starting WWII in 1938. Given that Kissinger writes books about Diplomacy I feel this directly implies that Kissinger sees a Realpolitick solution for Hitler. I saw it too, once Kissinger pointed out that Hitler should have attacked in 1938.

What would you define as significantly outgunned and outproduced?

Any POD after Dec 8th 1941 when America declares war on Nazi Germany, Any chance at a Nazi victory is very slim.

Any POD after 1943 the chance of Hitler winning would be almost ASB

Germany cannot defeat America and the Soviet Union. Can he have defeated either the Soviet Union or the United States? That is another story.

 

[Urban fox]

The Thrid Reich had insane amounts of luck between 1939-1942. To make it preform better is just too strenuous.

I could find far more PODs to make the Wehrmacht shoot-it's-bolt in France in 1940, however no-one seems to care about that subject nearly so much...

 

[Elfwine]

It was pretty clear what Hitler believed from Mein Kampf yet he was able to successful lie to people for years. "If anybody thinks I want war, they do not understand me. I served and was gassed in the trenches of WWI." Is pretty typical of the rhetoric he used when he was talking to non-supporters, who were foreign.

But not very many people read Mein Kampf, apparently. That the Nazi platform was anti-Slavic wasn't exactly well hidden.

I do not love Kissinger's Realpolitick, but he is the leading proponent of Realpolitick in the West and a very good scholar. Both because he is a German Jew and because currently serious scholars do not do alt-history I have to read between the lines. He openly opines that Hitler would have been better off starting WWII in 1938. Given that Kissinger writes books about Diplomacy I feel this directly implies that Kissinger sees a Realpolitick solution for Hitler. I saw it too, once Kissinger pointed out that Hitler should have attacked in 1938.

That still leaves the question of why we should regard him as both an authority here and someone who we would expect to say otherwise.

So what's his basis for why Germany would have been better off?

Any POD after Dec 8th 1941 when America declares war on Nazi Germany, Any chance at a Nazi victory is very slim.

Any POD after 1943 the chance of Hitler winning would be almost ASB

Germany cannot defeat America and the Soviet Union. Can he have defeated either the Soviet Union or the United States? That is another story.

Makes sense.

The Thrid Reich had insane amounts of luck between 1939-1942. To make it preform better is just too strenuous.

I could find far more PODs to make the Wehrmacht shoot-it's-bolt in France in 1940, however no-one seems to care about that subject nearly so much...

France has enough triumphs, no need to add more. That's my excuse for not seriously looking into it, lame as it may be.

 

[Snake Featherston]

There are a few cases where they might have been more successful politically (no Yugoslav Coup, so pro-Axis Yugoslavia, adhering more strictly to the M-R Pact so better to sucker the USSR with a surprise attack with, things like that) but militarily OTL is as good as they could possibly have asked for. Any number of different things even in an OTL-style 1941 situation could horribly bugger the Nazi state much earlier and at far less cost. Politically they can do better, militarily an unbroken string of victories up to the Battle of Moscow is as much as any former street bum turned imperial overlord could hope for.