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

[Ian_W]

You're welcome to offer a reasoning behind your opinion, because as it stands this does not constitute a rebuttal.

Because a bunch of worthless ideologues - the sort of people who believed against all evidence the German Army was winning in 1918 - convinced themselves the Soviet Union would collapse after the first couple of defeats.

It didn't,

Just like the Soviets didn't surrender at losing Kiev, or Smolensk, or Kharkov, or the third time they had half a million men surrounded, they wouldnt have surrendered even if you wave a magic wand and say 'Leningrad falls because the Fuhrer wills it so !'.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

There is nobody around to prevent Hitler to settle the German settlers in the big chunk of Poland (~190 000 sq km) he just occupied. Invading of the USSR does not mean Germany can just attach the territory they want and go their merry way.

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]

A mjor invasion of a big country does not ease up the requirements for raw materials, but increases it. 3000+ tanks and 3000+ of other AFVs will consume obscene amount of fuel in combat, that is the fuel the Axis (predominantly German) economy does not receive. Same for 600000 (6 hundred thousand) trucks the Axis do the same, so do thousands of front-line aircraft. High consumption of artillery shells and other ammunition increases demand on chemical and metal industries. Damaged and destroyed weapon and weapon systems again add to the load already present on the industry. Manpower fighting, wounded or dead, in millions, is not a boon for economy.
Soviets were willing to ship raw materials to Germany whenever Germany was not trying to behave heavy-handed at the east. Germany was even receiving soybean from Japan via Soviet Union.

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.

We know too well how Hitler rated the Soviet state & people, their will and capacity to fight. Hence a prudent move would've been not to make the saame mistake twice - dont attack Soviet Union this time.

 

[History Learner]

Because a bunch of worthless ideologues - the sort of people who believed against all evidence the German Army was winning in 1918 - convinced themselves the Soviet Union would collapse after the first couple of defeats.

It didn't,

Just like the Soviets didn't surrender at losing Kiev, or Smolensk, or Kharkov, or the third time they had half a million men surrounded, they wouldnt have surrendered even if you wave a magic wand and say 'Leningrad falls because the Fuhrer wills it so !'.

Which ignores the consensus of both the Western Allies, Nazi Germany and the Soviets themselves-Stalin in particular-that the loss of Leningrad and Moscow both would prove fatal for the Soviet cause. Besides the contemporary thinking of the strategic thinkers, who based their opinions rationale on the understanding of how modern warfare required extensive logistics and an industrial base to supply it, the modern historical consensus lends itself quite well to this historical intepretation.

 

[Ian_W]

Which ignores the consensus of both the Western Allies, Nazi Germany and the Soviets themselves-Stalin in particular-that the loss of Leningrad and Moscow both would prove fatal for the Soviet cause. Besides the contemporary thinking of the strategic thinkers, who based their opinions rationale on the understanding of how modern warfare required extensive logistics and an industrial base to supply it, the modern historical consensus lends itself quite well to this historical intepretation.

Mmm.

*Looks at how you assume two and two make nineteen as to German logistics*

 

[thaddeus]

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?

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.
A Nazi-Soviet pact was possible, just not very high on the ranking of probable events.

my constant refrain is that invading the USSR was made almost certain by the initial M-R Pact, when they dealt away Finland and the Baltics along with Poland, leaving them solely dependent on trade with the USSR.

they could have divided Poland along the initial plan (Vistua/Bug Rivers) and Romania (with German-USSR-Hungary-Bulgaria), in the case of the latter they only ever received half their oil production and could not really afford to barter for that?

 

[Omar04]

There is nobody around to prevent Hitler to settle the German settlers in the big chunk of Poland (~190 000 sq km) he just occupied. Invading of the USSR does not mean Germany can just attach the territory they want and go their merry way.

The Nazis' plans were much larger then just Poland, it was the entirety of central and eastern Europe that was to be colonized and place to genocides under Generalplan Ost. This was more unrealistic then plausible as you said but it was a nazi war and post war goal.

mjor invasion of a big country does not ease up the requirements for raw materials, but increases it. 3000+ tanks and 3000+ of other AFVs will consume obscene amount of fuel in combat, that is the fuel the Axis (predominantly German) economy does not receive. Same for 600000 (6 hundred thousand) trucks the Axis do the same, so do thousands of front-line aircraft. High consumption of artillery shells and other ammunition increases demand on chemical and metal industries. Damaged and destroyed weapon and weapon systems again add to the load already present on the industry. Manpower fighting, wounded or dead, in millions, is not a boon for economy.
Soviets were willing to ship raw materials to Germany whenever Germany was not trying to behave heavy-handed at the east. Germany was even receiving soybean from Japan via Soviet Union.

The invasion was because of those shortages. USSR was unable to close this gap and unwilling to to begin with per my quotation. Therefore Hitler saw the way to solve this was an invasion of the USSR that would quickly push through and end the war with a battle of annihilation. This would theoretically give them caucasian oil and agriculture in the west to exploit in addition to the potential to exploit millions in slave labour. Therefore in Hitler's opinion this invasion would quickly succeed, put more pressure on UK, free up men for labour in the economy, allow for massive slave work, and crucially grant Germany oil and food in the Caucasus and Ukraine respectively.

We know too well how Hitler rated the Soviet state & people, their will and capacity to fight. Hence a prudent move would've been not to make the saame mistake twice - dont attack Soviet Union this time.

Actually Hitler realized precisely this which is why he chose to invade right when the USSR was not well equipped to take an invasion. He believed rightly that the Russians and Germans were going to collide sooner or later so it would be best to strike and get it done with when the campaign would be easiest.

 

[BlackDragon98]

Capture the BEF at Dunkirk.
Make peace with UK.
Stalin will then invade Germany in a preemptive strike (OP Groza)
Grind down the Sovs in a series of defensive battles commanded by Walter Model
Then, launch Barbarossa when the Sovs are drained of manpower and equipment

 

[Garrison]

Not attacking the USSR means the demand for oil and whatnot is much reduced.

Which would be great if there hadn't bee shortages before Germany invaded the USSR. Unless you are now proposing the Nazis impose drastic cuts on their armament programs then those shortages will persist.

As for the food - Axis-controlled Europe was not UK.

No, it was far worse off than the UK precisely because it was cut off from imports. Food production across Western Europe crashed after the Nazi conquest. Indeed propping up the food supply and industry of Western Europe made Nazi Germany's resource issues even worse

Stalin was eager to ship more raw materials to Germany than Germans were asking for after fall of France.

Yes because it suited him to do so and the Nazis provided high value technology in return that improved the capability of Soviet armaments production. Stalin also of course tried to extort more concessions from the Germans for those resources at various points and the Nazi leadership was perfectly well aware that continuing the arrangement strengthened the USSR while leaving them dependent on Stalin's largesse.

 

[TheKennedyMachine.]

Which would be great if there hadn't bee shortages before Germany invaded the USSR. Unless you are now proposing the Nazis impose drastic cuts on their armament programs then those shortages will persist.



No, it was far worse off than the UK precisely because it was cut off from imports. Food production across Western Europe crashed after the Nazi conquest. Indeed propping up the food supply and industry of Western Europe made Nazi Germany's resource issues even worse



Yes because it suited him to do so and the Nazis provided high value technology in return that improved the capability of Soviet armaments production. Stalin also of course tried to extort more concessions from the Germans for those resources at various points and the Nazi leadership was perfectly well aware that continuing the arrangement strengthened the USSR while leaving them dependent on Stalin's largesse.

Very nice debate so far, you have some decent points.

 

[TheKennedyMachine.]

Capture the BEF at Dunkirk.
Make peace with UK.
Stalin will then invade Germany in a preemptive strike (OP Groza)
Grind down the Sovs in a series of defensive battles commanded by Walter Model
Then, launch Barbarossa when the Sovs are drained of manpower and equipment

Not bad!

 

[mattep74]

Use the trains to transport supplies and not people to camps

 

[TheKennedyMachine.]

Use the trains to transport supplies and not people to camps

LMAO

 

[TheKennedyMachine.]

my constant refrain is that invading the USSR was made almost certain by the initial M-R Pact, when they dealt away Finland and the Baltics along with Poland, leaving them solely dependent on trade with the USSR.

they could have divided Poland along the initial plan (Vistua/Bug Rivers) and Romania (with German-USSR-Hungary-Bulgaria), in the case of the latter they only ever received half their oil production and could not really afford to barter for that?

Dividing Poland would've probably ended better for the two regimes.

 

[Omar04]

Dividing Poland would've probably ended better for the two regimes.

That's what happened.

 

[thaddeus]

my constant refrain is that invading the USSR was made almost certain by the initial M-R Pact, when they dealt away Finland and the Baltics along with Poland, leaving them solely dependent on trade with the USSR.

they could have divided Poland along the initial plan (Vistua/Bug Rivers) and Romania (with German-USSR-Hungary-Bulgaria), in the case of the latter they only ever received half their oil production and could not really afford to barter for that?

Dividing Poland would've probably ended better for the two regimes.

That's what happened.

my point was to divide Poland along the original line, which would have given the Soviets more territory under the scenario they have not conceded Finland and the Baltics to Soviet sphere of influence. also to divide Romania under force or threat, since the German region would have been the oil producing area, they could have gotten more oil, that being the point, and avoid invading East, at least for a period.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Capture the BEF at Dunkirk.
Make peace with UK.
Stalin will then invade Germany in a preemptive strike (OP Groza)
Grind down the Sovs in a series of defensive battles commanded by Walter Model
Then, launch Barbarossa when the Sovs are drained of manpower and equipment

So totally reliant on the enemy doing the dumbs?

Sounds like a Yamamoto plan

 

[nbcman]

Capture the BEF at Dunkirk.
Make peace with UK.
Stalin will then invade Germany in a preemptive strike (OP Groza)
Grind down the Sovs in a series of defensive battles commanded by Walter Model
Then, launch Barbarossa when the Sovs are drained of manpower and equipment

The commander of 3rd Pz Div isn’t going to be commanding the defense of Germany. Model was too junior and only got seriously elevated after his actions and the experience he gained during Barbarossa.

 

[BlackDragon98]

The commander of 3rd Pz Div isn’t going to be commanding the defense of Germany. Model was too junior and only got seriously elevated after his actions and the experience he gained during Barbarossa.

Manstein then.
Rommel, Henrici, and Model can hold their ground and consume Sovs by the 100,000s.

 

[BlackDragon98]

So totally reliant on the enemy doing the dumbs?

Sounds like a Yamamoto plan

If one looks at it logically, the primary reasons why USSR did not invade Germany in 1941:
-USSR wasn't ready (all their dope equipment was just starting production)
-Stalin thought too highly of Hitler (he thought Adolf wouldn't be so dumb and start a 2 front war)
-Red Army was still recovering from the Great Purges

ITTL UK is out and Hitler is getting ready for Barbarossa
I can see Stalin pulling a Six Day on Hitler as German divisions are transiting to the East
It would be pretty successful until the Nazis got their stuff together

 

[Cryhavoc101]

If one looks at it logically, the primary reasons why USSR did not invade Germany in 1941:
-USSR wasn't ready (all their dope equipment was just starting production)
-Stalin thought too highly of Hitler (he thought Adolf wouldn't be so dumb and start a 2 front war)
-Red Army was still recovering from the Great Purges

ITTL UK is out and Hitler is getting ready for Barbarossa
I can see Stalin pulling a Six Day on Hitler as German divisions are transiting to the East
It would be pretty successful until the Nazis got their stuff together

Bucket full of ifs