Most likely extent of German conquests in WWII

So I've heard that OTL German successes were based on incredible German luck during the first few years of WWII. If that is the case, what is the more plausible/likely extent of German territorial gains in WWII with a POD of Sept 1 1939?
 
A bit more than what they conquered IOTL. They could maybe take a bit more of the Soviet Union (Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc.) and some more neutral countries.
 
So I've heard that OTL German successes were based on incredible German luck during the first few years of WWII. If that is the case, what is the more plausible/likely extent of German territorial gains in WWII with a POD of Sept 1 1939?

We must thus introduce some incredible bad luck for the Germans. Sept 1st Germany invades Poland. Sept 2nd, France invades Germany.
 
A bit more than what they conquered IOTL. They could maybe take a bit more of the Soviet Union (Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc.) and some more neutral countries.

I said most likely, not the maximum and luckiest extent (which would in fact be the most unlikely w/o being ASB) which you seem to be taking it as.
 
I said most likely, not the maximum and luckiest extent (which would in fact be the most unlikely w/o being ASB) which you seem to be taking it as.
Then I guess OTL's borders, seeing as how they actually got that.

The problem is that this is a very general question. It really depends on what the POD is. Could you be more specific?
 
Is the challenge finding sequences of events which would fall within one standard deviation of some arbitrary "mean" chain of wins and losses?
 
OTL was something of a best case for Germany so it would probably be more helpful to look at the worst case as well so we could then look at the happy mediums.

Poland's going to go, no helping that except with a pre-war POD. Ditto Denmark Luxembourg. It's when you get to stuff like Norway, the Low Countries, France, and the Soviet Union that you run into states with the power and/or geography to royally screw-up Germany's plans. Absolute worst case for Germany compared to IOTL from a territorial stand point: they take Poland, Denmark, much of Belgium and the Netherlands but are repelled from Norway and a piece of northeastern France before stalling and then being driven back over the next year or two.
 
Last edited:
And what happens on September 1st 1939 that is different than what happened IOTL? Because it could be anything from Germany not invading Poland to Hitler having a stroke and being replaced by someone else.

I said most likely sequence of events. You're asking what happens on that day as if it is all deterministic. Hitler changing his mind and not invading Poland or having a stroke with a POD of Sept 1 1939 is incredibly unlikely to say the least. The POD could be anytime Sept 1 1939 or later, not have to be that day. Think of this in terms of probability. It's like asking if I flip a coin a hundred times, what are the range of the number of heads that I will see with a X% probability, with X as a high percentage you'd consider to be likely.
 
Poland's going to go, no helping that except with a pre-war POD.
But it is sometimes claimed that even the Polish war could be lost, or not won, by the Germans. If Russia does not attack, then the Poles remain for some time longer, while German equipment was wearing out, and the weather was changing for the worse (was it?) and if France and Britain had made some threatening moves, there is even less of German force available to finish off this war. So, if the Poles are around somewhere into 1940, the western campaigns will be postponed, and might get even worse than above for Germany.
 
But it is sometimes claimed that even the Polish war could be lost, or not won, by the Germans. If Russia does not attack, then the Poles remain for some time longer, while German equipment was wearing out, and the weather was changing for the worse (was it?) and if France and Britain had made some threatening moves, there is even less of German force available to finish off this war. So, if the Poles are around somewhere into 1940, the western campaigns will be postponed, and might get even worse than above for Germany.

Even if they were able to pull back into eastern Poland then it merely means they last maybe a month longer, two at the most. In the west the Germans had something like 44 divisions and an independent brigade off the top defending a fortified frontier so it will be a while before the French can muster the forces needed to break through and in OTL while they did launch a limited offensive in the Saar it did not amount to much in terms of effect.

So the conquest of Poland is a good point to set the one standard divination from reality as experienced limit for the 'worst' case for Germany end of the spectrum.
 
And what happens on September 1st 1939 that is different than what happened IOTL? Because it could be anything from Germany not invading Poland to Hitler having a stroke and being replaced by someone else.
Replaced by who?Hitler surrounds himself with the worst human garbage possible.
 
Does this include Axis victory scenarios? Or is this scenario asking for the Allies to win WW2? With Allied victory, a bit more of France, Leningrad, Stalingrad, the Caucasus and some Russian territory may seem feasible, if the Soviets recover sufficiently enough. [I hope that if the Germans enter Leningrad, the Soviets get an extra corps of German troops as casualties the next winter or spring.]
 

Deleted member 1487

Does this include Axis victory scenarios? Or is this scenario asking for the Allies to win WW2? With Allied victory, a bit more of France, Leningrad, Stalingrad, the Caucasus and some Russian territory may seem feasible, if the Soviets recover sufficiently enough. [I hope that if the Germans enter Leningrad, the Soviets get an extra corps of German troops as casualties the next winter or spring.]
If the Germans conquer Leningrad they will have a lot of reduced losses due to removing one front, having a massively important means of supply, shutting down the Baltic to Soviet shipping (Soviet submarines were an issue the entire war), capture a lot of Soviet shipping to use to bring in supplies, get a lot of scrap metal from Soviet naval forces, eliminate well over 100k Soviet troops from their OOB, get a lot of extra forced labor, capture some industry to export to Germany, and get a lot of high quality airbases. Leningrad falling would free up large numbers of Axis troops to cut off Murmansk and capture it, cutting of LL supply, which was 25% of all LL, much more early on, and free up over 100k German troops for other fronts.

Plus the Soviets would be forced for political reasons to launch non-stop offensives to recapture it and with it being a major supply center and eliminating that front locking down German troops means the Soviet breakthrough to the city would be virtually impossible. Its very bad news of Leningrad falls in 1941.
 
Best case scenario for the Germans? If it is possible for the Germans to negotiate a peace early in the war, I would say 1914 borders and Sudetenland, Austria and Luxemburg. But you need to ditch Hitler and probably the Nazi party to get such a deal. If such a peace isn't possible I would say either 1918 borders, or 1918 borders without East-Prussia. It depends on how long the Germans can hold back the Russians, while the western allies advance into Germany. I doubt the western Allies would completely dismantle or depopulate the eastern part of Germany, like the Soviets did.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
most likely outcome for the germans

conquest of poland on schedule

no scandinavian front period, so denmark and norway are neutral

in the west germany takes luxemburg, netherlands and over half of belgium plus some bits of france but not as much as wwi

then the germans stall and the western allies begin to recover and improve. the germans get pushed back from western conquests by early 1943 and lose the war before summer

neither the italians nor japanese nor bulgarians, romanians or hungarians have joined the war

the ussr joins the fight in 1943 at the last minute and occupies poland up to the oder including warsaw and also slovakia
and east prussia

the wallies reach berlin and prague first. vienna is a toss up being liberated by the wallies or a last minute italian intervention.

in the interim coups against hitler have tried but failed one or more times

the united states has been a nonbelligerent throughout but has extended enormous credits and supplies to the allies along with some volunteers/mercenaries.

the western territorial extent of stalinist communism is less but the ussr is much less damaged and more prosperous. wwii has been calamitous for the germans like otl. it has been a greater deographic disaster for france, belgium, netherlands, britain and the white dominions than otl.

so there you go i think we have the median most likely scenario the original poster asked for.
 
OTL was something of a best case for Germany so it would probably be more helpful to look at the worst case as well so we could then look at the happy mediums.

Poland's going to go, no helping that except with a pre-war POD. Ditto Denmark Luxembourg. It's when you get to stuff like Norway, the Low Countries, France, and the Soviet Union that you run into states with the power and/or geography to royally screw-up Germany's plans. Absolute worst case for Germany compared to IOTL from a territorial stand point: they take Poland, Denmark, much of Belgium and the Netherlands but are repelled from Norway and a piece of northeastern France before stalling and then being driven back over the next year or two.

I see the above working like this:

Norway could have been a disaster for the Germans if the Norweigan Government had decided to order a full, rather than a partial mobilisation. Then it might have been the Germans that were taken by surprise as they would have been fighting a fully mobilised Norwegian field army, coast artillery and navy. Even if the German landings on the Atlantic coast of Norway they are not going to hold out for long without reinforcement and that is going to be difficult while the Norwegians control the Oslo area and IIRC the attempted seaborne landing at Oslo was repulsed by the Norwegian coast defences and the airborne landing was nearly beaten off by 7 Norweigan Gloster Gladiator fighters.

Also the British Admiralty thought the Kriegsmarine's preparations and ship movementsas an attempt to break into the Atlantic and deployed the Home Fleet accordingly. If London had interpreted them as an invasion attempt of Norway and deployed the Home Fleet accordingly it would have been curtains for the Kriegsmarine and if the Norweigians were still in control of the Stavanger Sola airfield the Royal Navy would be much less vulnerable to attack by the Luftwaffe.

If the Germans hadn't changed their attack and kept the rehash of the Schleiffen Plan then the WAllied forces trapped around Dunkirk IOTL would be beaten back to the Somme-Aisne Line with the rest of the French Army. It would then be harder for the Germans to break through.

If France is still holding out by the second week of June 1940 then Mussolini might remain neutral which butterfly out Greece, Crete and North Africa as Hitler doesn't have to bail Mussolini out. It might make Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia more anti-axis.

It's also unlikely that the Germans would be unable to invade Russia in 1941.
 
Top