How late could Nazi Germany have turned the tide of war?

If the Germans had taken Leningrad and Moscow in 1941, the Soviet system would've collapsed.
The system might have collapsed, but Americans would still be offering supplies (assuming an Allied or at least neutral Japan particularly), and Russians would fight on with what they had beyond the Urals. It might not be much , but they'd still count for something. Germans couldn't expand much farther.
 
Even if Churchil stays, Hitler could've contacted the japanese and proposed a joint plan to attack the USSR. The nazis didn't even gave japan a warning about the whole Operation Barbarossa, really short-sighted.

"oh but excuse me, even with the japanese and the germans attacking together the soviets would still keep fighting" Yeah...they could still fight til the end, but there's no guarantee that they will.
And what is Japan using for oil in this scenario? Its the main reason they went for the Southern option not the North.
 
About 1936 - by taking an entirely different course and having a massively less crackpot leadership!

I simply do not believe they can win without changing, massively, the decisions taken and strategy adopted. A few issues off the top of my head:

  • Their diplomatic activities & influence was really poor,
  • the worldview of their leadership was shockingly tiny and internal,
  • the geopolitical understanding of their leadership limited at best,
  • their external political antennae non existent,
  • their understanding and treatment of humanity perverted
  • their industrial strategy and production capacity limited
  • their use of women in industry extremely limited ( meaning not every man was fit man was fighting)
  • their access to strategic materials limited ( oil, bauxite, copper etc etc)
  • their armed forces backward in terms of road transportation
Once they embark on their course I think failure is inevitable. We know this now but at the time it was not clear. A more sensible contemporaneous diplomatic and political approach might have yielded better results. I don't think they could win a global war. However, they need not have lost a European war completely.
 
It is very hard to make Nazi Germany strong enough that it could have a say in peace deals. What you could do is to make others weaker. Collapse of Soviets early enough could be one or the US is more isolationist and neutral. Bonus points if you can make the US insist that it should be able to do trade with both sides unhindered. They could be in this only for the money.
 
****************EDIT*****************
In actuality, I missed that your reply was not a response to my post immediately before yours, but rather to one made earlier by @History Learner, so dumb on me early in the morning/late late late night...:confused::oops:

The Soviets would have continued on, esp given the Nazis were doing a war of extermination against them. Taking Moscow just buys them more time. The Peace feelers Stalin put out, the Soviets would have done a round 2 as soon as they could.
I think you missed the date mentioned, as in late fall of 1940, as in during the BoB, as opposed to, say, late fall of 1941, as in during Barbarossa. :)

The beauty of this is that, when Churchill tried the old, "FDR, if the UK is left to fight the Axis alone, we will be forced to consider anything that guarantees our future existence, including, perhaps, turning over the entire RN to the Nazi's if that is what it takes". Churchill never intended any such thing, but as a stick to prod the reluctant USA into supporting them in yet another giant war, that was indeed an effective goad.

So here, we have Winston on the receiving end, with Stalin demanding the Crushing of the Japanese as the price for having to fight the Germans yet again, in what is sure to cost the USSR dearly in lives and treasure.
 
Last edited:
I have trouble with economic arguments. Industrial arguments, yes — if your enemy can build five times as many tanks, you lose. But if you build tanks with borrowed money, with glorified IOUs, whatever, you’ve still got tanks, and you can ask your creditors if they really want to go to war over so many scraps of paper. Of course, Germany needed gold and hard currency to buy rubber, oil, chromium, etc., but the Reichsmark was relatively hard, possibly even more so after the Anschluss, and after war broke out they could just get those resources by strong arm robbery. Maybe I’m missing something, but, as I see it, when you’re willing to go to war, finances only matter in so far as they affect military strength.

(Added) Is there a historical example of a country calling in its debts (as in “pay now or else)?
Thing is you can ignore IOUs....once, after that no else accepts them and it's cash in advance

Yes you can seize stuff but it quite hard to turn that into cash, or use it to trade if you are in the middle of a war with your opposition looking to block trade.

The system might have collapsed, but Americans would still be offering supplies (assuming an Allied or at least neutral Japan particularly), and Russians would fight on with what they had beyond the Urals. It might not be much , but they'd still count for something. Germans couldn't expand much farther.

If nothing else even just 'European' Russia/USSR before the Urals is a vast area the German will have to hold and pacify, (and keep holding and pacifying when the death squads start going door to door)
 
Last edited:
When Churchill was elected, the Nazis lost. A weaker British PM might have sought an earlier, brokered western peace, and the Nazis could have put full focus on the East.
To be pedantic, Churchill wasn't elected. He was appointed by the King on the advice of a relatively small group of people.

Of course, the King as a constitutional monarch couldn't say no in practice (even in the very unusual circumstances of 1940).

That said, in a western democracy the PM can only get away with so much. Churchill - it could be argued - could only continue to fight the war in the way he did as that was what the British public expected. If Lord Halifax had been appointed PM instead (which is possible, but I've never been convinced it was as straightforward an alternative as some suggest as he was in the Lords and all that) he wouldn't have lasted long if he instantly raised the white flag.

At best, the UK could have negotiated some sort of peace but there is next to no chance of there not being preparations to re-enter the war...unless Germany physically had people in the UK preventing it, which would never have been accepted.

In short, I'd argue there is zero chance Nazi Germany could have won WWII as it became. Potentially if they'd stopped with Poland and Britain and France hadn't become involved, but in terms of dominating all of Europe up to the Urals? Forget it.
 
The day they realized they couldn't invade Britain. Not invading Britain means Britain and it's empire will continuosly undermine them, fight them and back all other countries fighting them. It means a two front war with the USSR, and it means eventual US intervention.
 
Last edited:
In fact Adam Tooze demonstrated they were in for a serious production boom as of 1943 before the Battle of the Ruhr blunted any expansion for 6 months.
How significant of a production boom?
Or that the Soviets took heavier losses than the Japanese at Nomonhan despite grossly outgunning and outnumbering them.

Supposedly Stalin was quite desperate to cut a deal with Hitler in 1941 and the Germans rebuffed them.
What led to the Soviets’ heavy losses?
How much resources would no Battle of Britain or attacks against the UK free up for the German invasion of the USSR?
 
Last edited:
Do keep a few things in mind. With the cost of the war Germany still survived until 45. So I see no practical reason to assume it would implode economically before that if it A) managed a treaty with Britain, B) Didn’t fight in Africa and C) did go to war with the USSR and as a result didn’t go to war with the USA.
It was a dictatorship that was more then willing to shoot anyone that got in its way so I don’t see things getting bad enough that the people give up all hope of survival and overthrow the government. (Keep in mind how few revolutions ever work without outside influences)
But the Key to this is to end the war with Britain and I am not sure you can do that once the BoB has started. I think you need to not start attacking Britain. Then you can claim that you never wanted to fight Britain. And as said elsewhere if you leave Britain along eventually the people are going to get tired of the deaths.
keep in Mind that the British peopl where not THAT happy with France, they thought they did a poor showing of defending themselve, and that they gave up way way way to easy and of course they were unhappy with the giving up after agreeing that they and Britain would never sign a Seperate peace treaty with Germany. So basically a lot of folks in England thought that the French screwed up, and that the French were just using England and never cared about England. And more then a few looked at WW1 (rightly or not) as the French needing yo be saved by England at the cost of a lot of English lives. So I don’t think you will see any tendency by Britain (or at least the British) to be willing to spend a lot of money and lives to protect France when France is unwilling to do so to protect France much less Britain.

So if you stop attacking Britain I think eventually Britain will stop fighting.
 
How significant of a production boom?
By what metric? That's a rather nebulous question.
One example is tank production, it doubled in number of tanks from Autumn 1942-May 1943 (Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze p.595), but thanks to tanks increasing in weight in terms of tonnage it increased by 160% beyond the raw number of units. Ammo production doubled in 1942 (Speer took over in Feburary 1942).

What led to the Soviets’ heavy losses?
Tactics and their operational doctrine. The Soviet military had serious problems even in the Far East where the purges barely touched their officers. The problem was seen earlier where they were pretty badly beaten by the Japanese in 1938 as well, so even with reinforcements from Europe they still apparently were not that well trained and the operational doctrine tended to demand units fit a rigid plan that tended to result in massed attacks, which generated heavy casualties.

How much resources would no Battle of Britain or attacks against the UK free up for the German invasion of the USSR?
IIRC something like 3000 aircraft were lost fighting the British from July 1940-May 1941. The catalogue of other forces not destroyed but still dedicated to fighting the British in some capacity in this period is harder to calculate, but IIRC it was roughly 1/3rd of the Luftwaffe and several divisions and army level support apparatus behind them.
 
Last edited:
August 31, 1939. Nazi Germany and Hitler signed their death warrants on a fateful day in summer.

If we're talking about the tide of war, then it's impossible.

Even if Churchil stays, Hitler could've contacted the japanese and proposed a joint plan to attack the USSR. The nazis didn't even gave japan a warning about the whole Operation Barbarossa, really short-sighted.

"oh but excuse me, even with the japanese and the germans attacking together the soviets would still keep fighting" Yeah...they could still fight til the end, but there's no guarantee that they will.
Japan wouldn't attack the USSR. They gained a bloody nose over the border clashes and had a non-aggression pact with the USSR. Even if they broke the agreement and attacked the USSR, they would still lose as America was destroying them on the high seas and eventually the home islands. Don't forget the main reason the Japanese surrender WAS the USSR.
 
if they followed your scenario and also struck an agreement with Vichy regime (withdrawing from most of the country), do you think the UK would have continued to fight to restore the other occupied countries?

there is a very cynical deal that could have been made over the Dutch and Belgian empires, historically the Nazi regime was paid with Belgian and Polish gold by the French.
It's really hard to say, Churchill would have wanted to, but the rest of the Country? There is a lot to say about not having to worry if a bomb is going to punch a hole in the ceiling, and not having to worry about your son dying on some foreign shore, especially if it isn't to, apparently, protect England.
that was about my calculation. do think it would have been a much simpler conflict to end if Italy had not joined in yet?

my Cynical Plan may be wildly improbable? since Germany cannot reach Congo or East Indies, but at the upper limits of possible, some of the DEI and Belgian Congo might have been swapped to UK and France for Syria and Iraq (oil concession) since Germany did have a railway there.
 
To be pedantic, Churchill wasn't elected. He was appointed by the King on the advice of a relatively small group of people.
Point of order Mr Chairman: Churchill WAS elected. He was elected MP for Epping in 1935 and was subsequently invited to lead the government as the only man able to deliver the confidence of the house of commons even though he was not leader of his party. This is entirely normal in the British Parliament. We don't vote for a PM.

Thank you.
 
They could collapse. If the germans take Moscow the soviets would be in a very complicated position, and I'm not even talking bout railway logistic problems. Would Stalin even leave Moscow? If he leaves this could lead to mass desertion along all the front. If he stays, well...

And the japanese dont need to really defeat the soviets in Siberia, they just need to make Moscow commit there even a little bit. If Tokyo successfully delays the embargo they could put a hell of a fight in Manchuria.
They already had identified and started to move personnel to a back up "Capitol" to Kuybyshev when Stalin decided to stay in Moscow. Besides they would never have admitted Stalin had left Moscow unless the Germans actually seized the city, in which case he would have been "Leading the Peoples army against the fascist invaders" from whichever rabbit hole he disappeared down.
 
Thing is you can ignore IOUs....once, after that no else accepts them and it's cash in advance

Yes you can seize stuff but it quite hard to turn that into cash, or use it trade if you are in the middle of a war with your opposition looking to block trade.




If nothing else even just 'European' Russia/USSR before the Urals is a vast area the German will have to hold and pacify, (and keep holding and pacifying when the death squads start going door to door)
One reason the Germans forged all of those £5 notes, just the thing for cash deals where no one was asking questions. They were very good forgeries too, the Bank of England couldn't work out which were real and which weren't so they added a metal strip in 1945.
 
Latest date would be 1942, if they can hold the don-volga area into 1943-44 (without the stalingrad fiasco, so this would require them sticking more to the original fall blau instead of the mad dash into the caucasus) the soviets will have serious food issues. This also requires more PoDs regarding the fight against the UK&US, but there would probably be some butterflies there anyway if the soviets collapse, question is how many dead the US can stomach to liberate europe and if UK fears nazis retaliating with chemical/biological weapons if they get nuked in 45 or later.
 
To be honest, the real question is: The Reich with or without Hitler?

Hitler will want to keep fighting, and if he remains the supreme dictator of Germany, then the latest Germany could have been salvaged was August 31, 1939.

If someone overthrew Hitler (or if he dies in a freak accident, etc.) then the question is when it's too late for Germany to turn the tide of the war militarily.
 
I wonder if the Germans had been able to capture most of BEF at Dunkirk,treated them decently then offered them back to Britain publicly,all while having no Battle of Britain,could a war government survive in London?
 
Top