# Could Germany have ever won WWII?



## WaylanderToo (Mar 2, 2016)

In view of something written on a different thread vis-a-vis Hitler and jet engines
I have quite a simple question really (though a complex answer one suspects as there would be soooooo many variables)...

I would have thought that had they not been brutal in extremis to the people they conquered (especially in the USSR) they may well have seen a far more favourable outcome in the East. I suspect that had Russia been knocked out then that could have caused the even US some issues in terms of natural resources.

No strategic/long range bombers (thanks to Goering and Hitler in the main IIRC) didn't help matters.

If Germany hadn't declared war on the US would the US have entered the war given their isolationism?

What if the UK had remained neutral?

What if Russia had invaded Poland before they'd signed the accord with Germany... would we have had the UK, France and Germany all getting ready to invade Russia?


come on let's have at it and see where we can get to


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 2, 2016)

Germany couldn't win so long as Hitler insisted on controlling all military decisions. His experience of war was too much shaped by WWI, so he failed to grasp the changing needs of modern warfare, not least the importance of air superiority. His attack on Russia, forcing Germany to fight a war on two fronts, was a classic military mistake.

He apparently also believed that a brave heart would overcome any difficulties, so any problems reported from the front he dismissed as cowardice.

Towards the end of the war he was reportedly giving manoeuvring orders for divisions that didn't exist, but it was easier to allow Hitler to continue to live in a fantasy world than try to confront him with hard facts.

If Hitler had delegated more, been less prone to toadyism and corruption, been more consistent and less likely to keep changing his mind, then Germany might have been truly dangerous. But in the end Hitler had become just another deluded dictator, with no real idea of reality or how to deal with it.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 2, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> If Hitler had delegated more, been less prone to toadyism and corruption, been more consistent and less likely to keep changing his mind, then Germany might have been truly dangerous.



Or would they have? 

From the time Hitler became chancellor, 1933, to about the end of 1942 everything he decided to do more or less worked and brought 'success' to the German military that they probably would never have dreamt of. In terms of 'global grand strategy' he overrode the concerns of his general staff, party and generals and continually was right.  A German army, on it's own, may not even have re-occupied the Rhineland in 1936, never mind go about merging Austria and especially the invasion of Czechoslovakia. (Well documented that the army were terrified that the British and French would go to war over that and they felt they were just not ready)

Hitler always liked the 'radical solution' and in doing so not only did he confound his critics at home, he also was one step ahead of other world powers. At least at the start. I don't really think an ordinary German leader would have got anywhere near this mentality (and opportunities for luck) and perhaps there may never have been a second world war because _everyone_ would have been much more cautious. 

Hitler's actions should be viewed as gambles of course - at first he was betting (correctly) that both Western European powers didn't have the stomach for a fight and would leave him alone. Poland was his first venture that didn't quite pay off as it started the war in Europe. But he 'rescued' the situation with a Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact that stunned everyone else into inactivity. 

This string of success and good luck also however gave rise to his status as a 'demi-god' and fanaticism that probably added at least a year of more suffering at the end.


----------



## HareBrain (Mar 2, 2016)

I think they might have done, if they'd put aside the invasion of Russia for another year, and focused on invading the UK, which they might have achieved if they'd kept to their aim of destroying the RAF on the ground rather than bombing cities. With the UK invaded, Germany could then have taken the Middle Eastern oilfields from North Africa, meaning they wouldn't have to worry about securing them when invading Russia. The US would have been left with no invasion platform for Europe (but Germany probably could have avoided any problem there by not declaring war on the US in the first place).

Even with all that, Russia would still have been a very risky prospect, but with the UK gone and the US not involved in Europe, aid convoys wouldn't have been sent.

Anyway, that's the advice I would give Hitler if I had a time machine and was evil.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Mar 2, 2016)

Just read a fascinating alt history by the author CJ Samson who normally writes fiction set in the 16th Century.

In Dominion, its 1953, 13 years after the Prime Minister, Halifax "came to terms" with Hitler. Despite no UK, and no US Involvement in the War, Germany is still all these years later fighting in Russia. Stalin died, or rather iirc was brutally executed by the Nazis, oh dear, what a shame  Thus people far more sensible, and not prone to ludicrous things like exterminating everyone daring to wear red on a tuesday. They moved Russia's vital industry to Siberia, and even in 1953 those factories etc are still out of range of the Luftwaffe.

Churchill bless him, despite his age is leading the "British Resistance" from hiding - Britain whilst remaining Independent, and holding on to the British Empire, is becoming increasingly Fascist in government - the main reason Churchy is now in hiding is the election the year before was fixed, ensuring the election and Prime Ministership of Lord Beaverbrook, iirc a Canadian press mogul and Fascist. Now, almost like something out of V for Vendetta, the notorious "V" for Victory is graffitied all over Britain, and on resistance produced leaflets.

Along with the 1950's Movie, It Happened Here, it puts to bed the ludicrous folk myth we Britons have, that had we come under the influence of the Nazis, either peacefully, or by invasion, We weren't like "johnny Foreigner" over on the continent and would never have collaborated with the regime... 

I suspect the BBC are going to cause a lot of upset either late this year, or 2017 when they transmit the adaption of Len Deighton's alternate history novel SSGB they are currently filming! It's a fantastic book even if parts don't make sense - Sea Lion or a variation of it goes ahead, and includes landing a massive armoured division in Scotland, to charge south.

I don't know much about Armoured Warfare, but it strikes me as an insane idea, the same as an armoured invasion via Wales would - mountainous and hilly terrain is a nightmare for armoured warfare, since it favours the enemy, if they are highly mobile, and can set up gun emplacements on the surround heights....

I imagine it was the same principle that Owain Glyndwr used so well during the Welsh War of Independence - England's greatest was its Heavy Cavalry, some of, if not the best in Europe, and totally useless in such terrain, they require nice open fields of battle. I think it's one of the things that make Azincourt stand out as such a shocking Victory for the English and Welsh Troops - massively outnumbered by the French anyway, something daft like half to 3 quarters of the French nobility had turned up, so the French Horse at the field was a vast and horrific looking host. But some clever bugger got the Welsh and English Bowmen to dig little hidden holes in the ground, and iirc put down stakes.... and voila - it must be one of the few defeats of a significant Cavalry force on ground that they could not have better chosen had they tried.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Mar 2, 2016)

No they couldn't have won, cos Russia.
It's as well for the French the USA came in, or they'd be speaking Russian today.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Mar 2, 2016)

Ray McCarthy said:


> No they couldn't have won, cos Russia.
> It's as well for the French the USA came in, or they'd be speaking Russian today.



One intriguing "What If" that alt history writers seem to ignore is Himmler's offer to the Allies, right at the end. When, knowing the Red Army were likely to be as brutal to Germany as it was to the Soviet Empire, and not knowing whether the outcome would be all of Germany under Stalin's Jackboots - he made an offer, I assume in all seriousness to the Allies, to make an unconditional Surrender as such, then immediately have the Allies & the Wehrmacht turn on the Soviets.

I wonder what would have happened had such a deal been made. It must have been a little tempting, after all, once the Soviets were smashed it would be child's play to turn around and try and execute the likes of Himmler and surviving members of the Nazi Party etc - it may very well have been a workable idea with 1 major difference - lock up Himmler and the rest to await trial, and go to battle with the Wehrmacht having ensured it's leadership was Nazi supporter free. I could well imagine in such a situation that the Wehrmacht would have even cleaned house for the Allies, without even needing a trial, just knock off all the Nazis themselves. I don't know how credible they are, but there are claims, that towards the end, in the frontlines against the Soviets, the SS began refusing to go into Battle first, something the big brave bullying elite were supposed to do, because, with regular Wehrmacht Units behind them, quite a few SS Men would drop dead before getting into range of the Soviets, they appeared to be the "accidental" victims of "Friendly Fire" 

I think that was the SS in the sense of black uniformed bastards, not the Waffen SS who iirc were mostly just elite soldiers, not brutal thugs like the deaths head crowd - my mates grandfather was Waffen SS (got in fight with some of Hitler's Youth when iirc 17 and Judge offered him a choice of either Military Service or Prison Camp) and he must have been "politically clean" to the British after the war, as he was given permission to move to Wales, his home being what became East Germany, thus had he gone home, he would likely have been liquidated or worked to death in a Gulag by the NKVD or whomever. My mate has always wondered if his Dadcu was actually part of Operation Gladio, that plan to train "stay behind" troops in NATO Nations, to act as a Guerilla/Resistance Force in the event of Soviet invasion, and Britain is supposed, I don't know if true or not to have brought in elite German troops recruited in the POW camps, and considered non Nazis as part of the preparation - Basically a version of the "Auxiliary Units" that Britain had during WW2, composed of people such as Farmers and Miners too valuable in their roles to be given military service (like my Dadcu, a Blacksmith & Farrier who had to fight hard to be allowed to sign up, which he won eventually and became an early Royal Marines Commando) I think the secrecy behind the AU's was only dropped in the last few years, and a couple of chaps still living where they did during the war showed the Bunker they had built, which was still there, and would have contained food, weapons, ammo, radios and other supplies.

Auxiliary Units - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Auxiliary Units are not to be confused with the Auxiliary's who brought shame on Britain by some truly despicable actions during the Irish War of Independence. And Dadcu is Welsh for Grandfather - "Bill Jerry" as he was known and loved refused to teach or allow to be taught his children and grandchildren the German Language. And I have seem the odd Middle Class person be all  at the naming of "Bill Jerry" claiming it was racist, if me or my mate & his brother mentioned it, but the old boy was very proud of it - the moment he became Bill Jerry is when local villagers finally accepted him, as up to that point they had for obvious reasons been very off with him, and since there were multiple Bill's around, Wilhelm became Bill Jerry.

It was one of those weird moments, history coming alive though when he showed us his Tattoos which he hated as he was forced to get them - the main one was a "100% Pure Aryan" thing he was made to have, to show he was suitable for "breeding" with. So romantic those Nazis.


----------



## J Riff (Mar 2, 2016)

Well, based on what I see around here... maybe they did, and kept it secret, and are just quietly finishing it off. epends on your description of 'nazi' I guess.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Mar 2, 2016)

J Riff said:


> Well, based on what I see around here... maybe they did, and kept it secret, and are just quietly finishing it off. epends on your description of 'nazi' I guess.



Not sure I understand you correctly?


----------



## J Riff (Mar 2, 2016)

Well they can't all just _disappear,_ can they? They just submerged, came up with a new act and are still there, being Nazi as all get-out, but calling it something else. Seems like it anyway. It was a very large party after all. Only a handful went down, the rest just went on. )


----------



## The Ace (Mar 2, 2016)

There was no possibility of successfully invading Britain, and therefore Germany was committed to the long war for which she was manifestly unsuited.

Pearl Harbour was certainly a turning-point, and the decision to invade the SU - politically inevitable, but a tactical blunder - just made sure the war was a bit shorter.  Once the Japanese impetus ran out (also inevitable) it was a question of when - not if - the Allies won.


----------



## reiver33 (Mar 2, 2016)

Germany had no realistic prospect of winning given its leadership at the highest levels. The shortfall in strategic appreciation has already been mentioned. This resulted in a series of disjointed campaigns based on opportunism and/or short-term expediency. There was no long-term strategy other than a vague implementation of Hitler's pre-war political bias. Each arm of service each pursued its own agenda with little co-operation - and grudging support - from the others. 

For example - the Norway campaign. The primary mover is the Navy who what to make a contribution in a theatre where they will have the lead, with an eye on the post-war military budget allocation. Thus they talk-up the threat of an Allied invasion which will prevent Swedish iron ore being exported via the Norwegian port of Narvik while the northern Baltic Sea remains frozen.

However this attack takes place in mid-Spring, when the Baltic is already beginning to thaw, and on the verge of Germany's make-or-break offensive in the West. If this fails, if France (at least) isn't knocked out of the war, then the Reich is screwed. But if this _does_ succeed then Germany will gain control of the iron ore fields in Lorraine, and no longer need to buy in supplies from Sweden (so no need for Narvik). A far more logical approach would have been to provoke Britain and France into invading Norway, then castigate them in the court of world opinion (especially America). 

I would recommend 'Lost Victories' for examples of Hitler's disastrous influence on the Eastern Front. Even if the Soviet Union had been defeated then his abdication of the air war to Goering (who never out-grew the mentality of a squadron leader) would ultimately have cost them the war.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 2, 2016)

Instead of Barbarossa , Germany could have sent troops into Iraq and secured the Oil fields there , That would have put them close to Russia's oil supplies.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 3, 2016)

Their methods of production worked against them as well. Their vehicles weapons were well designed and in one case over engineered which made them difficult to repair on the battle field.

When the t34 tank came on the scene , the Germans captured some of them for study .  The T34 was a very simple ,reliable and practical designed tank. It was made so that it could be produced rapidly and in great numbers and was easy to repair on the battlefield.   The Germans responded with bigger , heavier tanks like the Panther, Tiger 1 and Tiger 2 all of which were complex machines that were  were great when they worked, but they broke down alot and were difficult to repair on the battlefield ,  worst of all were, difficult to manufacture because they were so complex and over engineered.  They were never able to produce nearly enough of them. The allies turned out simpler designs  like the the T 34, The Sherman in huger quantities that they overwhelmed the Germans.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Mar 3, 2016)

there was a book I read (can't remember the title) where Hitler dies, (I think) just prior to Barbarossa leading the Heydrich taking over. There were (as there always are in this sort of novel) a fair few coincidences to ensure 'the right result' (in novel terms) but none were totally outrageous... let's be honest if someone had written a story about Enigma these days it'd be dismissed as relying too much on lucky happenstance.


an interesting read 
Was it ever possible for Germany to win World War II? - Quora


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Mar 3, 2016)

The Ace said:


> and the decision to invade the SU - politically inevitable,


Likely they knew that Stalin was building up to attack them the following year. Stalin's reaction, "How dare they attack first? I wanted to attack first, we aren't ready yet"

War between Germany and SU was inevitable. If the Germans had kept going and ignored the Russians they'd bypassed, they might have taken Moscow. Stalin was banking on that they wouldn't. The Germans had to have a quick campaign against Russia, sooner rather than later to avoid being overwhelmed by superior Russian resources.  This is also why Russia stayed neutral to Japan and only declared war and attacked them after VE and that they had started shipping stuff East.  Russians were within ten days of causing Japanese collapse in North, after nearly two weeks of massive gains against Japanese, when US pointlessly dropped Atomic Bombs. Due to 1905 war etc, the Japanese decided surrender to USA rather than being over-run with Russian Troops was preferable.


----------



## The Ace (Mar 3, 2016)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Likely they knew that Stalin was building up to attack them the following year. Stalin's reaction, "How dare they attack first? I wanted to attack first, we aren't ready yet"
> 
> War between Germany and SU was inevitable. If the Germans had kept going and ignored the Russians they'd bypassed, they might have taken Moscow. Stalin was banking on that they wouldn't. The Germans had to have a quick campaign against Russia, sooner rather than later to avoid being overwhelmed by superior Russian resources.  This is also why Russia stayed neutral to Japan and only declared war and attacked them after VE and that they had started shipping stuff East.  Russians were within ten days of causing Japanese collapse in North, after nearly two weeks of massive gains against Japanese, when US pointlessly dropped Atomic Bombs. Due to 1905 war etc, the Japanese decided surrender to USA rather than being over-run with Russian Troops was preferable.



Hitler and Stalin were on an ideological collision course from the start - it simply suited both of them to come to a agreement over spheres of influence until they were ready (the attack on Poland etc).


----------



## MWagner (Mar 3, 2016)

You have to include Hitler's personality in any calculus, because without Hitler it's unlikely we would have seen an aggressively expansionist Germany in the first place. And for all their operational and tactical genius, the German military has always been weak at high-level strategy. 



The Ace said:


> There was no possibility of successfully invading Britain, and therefore Germany was committed to the long war for which she was manifestly unsuited.



This is key. Germany simply didn't have the naval capacity to carry out the kind of massive amphibious invasion required to successfully invade Britain. Look at the enormous amount of resources and planning it took simply for the Allies to invade North Africa. D-Day wasn't possible until Germany was already back on their heels from the hammer blows they were suffering in the East, and the Allies had near-absolute air superiority. 

Their only real hope was a swift and decisive victory over the Soviets. And given German ignorance of the logistical challenges of that endeavour - German estimates of road capacity in Russia were ludicrously uninformed - that was a slim, slim hope indeed. Some have argued that the Soviet Union would have collapsed swiftly if the Germans came as liberators and not ubermensch conquerors. But of course, if Germany wasn't in the grips of a fascist ideology, it's unlikely they would have invaded the Soviet Union in the first place.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 3, 2016)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Likely they knew that Stalin was building up to attack them the following year. Stalin's reaction, "How dare they attack first? I wanted to attack first, we aren't ready yet"
> 
> War between Germany and SU was inevitable. If the Germans had kept going and ignored the Russians they'd bypassed, they might have taken Moscow. Stalin was banking on that they wouldn't. The Germans had to have a quick campaign against Russia, sooner rather than later to avoid being overwhelmed by superior Russian resources.  This is also why Russia stayed neutral to Japan and only declared war and attacked them after VE and that they had started shipping stuff East.  Russians were within ten days of causing Japanese collapse in North, after nearly two weeks of massive gains against Japanese, when US pointlessly dropped Atomic Bombs. Due to 1905 war etc, the Japanese decided surrender to USA rather than being over-run with Russian Troops was preferable.



You know what really could have messed things up for Stalin? If Hitler instead of persecuting the people in the Russia Republic had instead armed them and offered them their independence from Russia and even better,  instead of iwprsioning and killing the Russian solders. why not arm them and send them right back at Stalin? Imagine Stalin have to contend with a lot pissed off republic and pissed of renegade  Russian soldiers  The chaos that would ice created. Soviet Russia would likely collapsed against that kind of onslaught.


----------



## reiver33 (Mar 4, 2016)

The attack on Russia began as 'map exercise Otto' - a purely military affair (this is what we need to achieve) which was then passed over to the staff side for a logistical appreciation. There was a long history of this twin-track approach in the German General Staff aimed at achieving a workable balance been aspiration and practicality. based on their experiences in WW1 and knowledge (or lack of same) concerning the communications infrastructure in Russia, the Quartermaster department estimated they could adequately supply an offensive to a line Leningrad-Smolensk-a bit east of Kiev in the first year. You then dig in and ride out the inevitable Soviet counter-offensive, while stockpiling supplies for Spring 1942. But - as has been mentioned - Hitler and those who bought into the whole 'Slavic sub-human' ethos believed the Soviet regime would collapse after the first few weeks. Thus logistical realities were ignored in the pursuit of piling on more pressure, in pursuit of final victory, and it was largely due to Stalin's malign influence that the Red Army suffered such appalling losses, which exceeded even the German's best estimates.


----------



## ralphkern (Mar 5, 2016)

How would Axis (and I'm going to expand Germany to mean the Axis as a whole) define win? 

If you consider win to be the total defeat of the Allies, the occupation of Europe, Russia, The US, so on and so forth. In short, the domination of the world then no. Or at least not in World War 2 (this comment justified below).

But the stated goals of Nazi Germany were to obtain living space for Germans (stretching from Germany to the Urals) and a final reckoning with the Jews. The attack on France was to defeat a foe that would be able to match them in the theater. 

France had more troops and tanks vs Germany's superior air power - One of the unintended consequences of the Treaty of Verseille was Germany had the ability to create a (then) modern, fit for purpose military from scratch without having to consider the military dogma other nations had to contend with which kept them behind Germany in doctrine (what use was the Maginot line for example? A great idea for WW1, not so much for 2). 

Assuming they also had the same gains they had in 'our WW2 and Germany had then managed to keep either us, or the Russians sweet for long enough through diplomacy (a hell of a stretch), then they stood a fair chance of defeating the other in detail. If they had taken Russia (at a favorable time of year) while enlisting Japanese aid in attacking from the far East and the UK had stood neutral then I think that's where World War 2 would have ended. 

A new geography would have emerged, with an Axis power block comprising of a good chunk of Western Europe combined with the (our timeline) Warsaw Pact countries vs a diminished NATO. 

Things go down hill from there. With easy access to Middle Eastern oil supplies, they would likely have gone for that (in fact that should have been much higher on the Axis agenda anyway). Germany with its superior rocket technology, combined with the vast resource and, more importantly, expertise it controlled would likely have the ability to create ICBMs quicker (and remember the warheads don't necessarily have to nuclear, they could be Biological or Chemical). They would have relatively quickly had the ability to strike America.

America would balance this with its own nuclear arsenal and a state of mutually assured destruction would create a new cold war with Britain as essentially a huge aircraft carrier parked off the Axis coast.

From there, that could have led to the hypothetical alternative WW3 - A much enhanced Axis vs a much diminished NATO (or whatever it would be called). 

Then, who knows...

Merely one scenario, and a lot of the politics have been simplified down for it. Another scenario would have been Germany keeping rigidly to its stated goals and striking North and East. We might have even shrugged and left them to that.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 5, 2016)

Nazi Germany was not very efficient  in terms of administration. You had overlapping  bureaucracy in which  you had competing power structures and agencies competed and fighting  against each other for money and favor from Hitler. And economically  the Reich was always one a war footing and one step ahead of economic collapse. In other world they had to keep on expanding or collapse. Of course the more they expand the bigger and more inefficient their government . But once they stop expanding, thats when the problems really begin to amplify for them.  They would collapsed in about 10 years or so after the war.


----------



## ralphkern (Mar 5, 2016)

Possibly, or should I say probably. Its not as if they could have been much more brutal than the Russians in quelling unrest and policing such vast tracts would have been a logistical nightmare. But maybe, relatively speaking, the Russian people would have perceived themselves to be better off under Axis rule.

But, the other issues mentioned, stagnation and and constantly teetering on the brink of economic collapse could have driven them to continue their expansionist policies. Riding the crest of the wave before it breaks, so to speak.

Or, Axis could have taken the territory. Smashed it to smithereens and removed all competitors (or established friendly allies) and then, by choice, withdrawn and consolidated into a still much larger (than our time line), but manageable empire.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 5, 2016)

Oil was always a problem for Germany. They never really seemed to have  enough of it .They had the oilfields in Romania and they came up with a way of converting Cola into oil but that hugely expensive and  these sources were tenuous at best.  

By the time of  the Battle of the Bulge, file was in such short supply that they had rely on capturing file from the allies.


----------



## pambaddeley (Mar 6, 2016)

The Ace said:


> Hitler and Stalin were on an ideological collision course from the start - it simply suited both of them to come to a agreement over spheres of influence until they were ready (the attack on Poland etc).


Not just ideological; Hitler had been going on about 'lebensraum' for years Lebensraum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and wrote about it in Mein Kamp; the Nazis wanted the Russian territory for expansion of the German people who they felt were hemmed in.  Other countries such as Britain had empires and they made it clear that they wanted their own.


----------



## pambaddeley (Mar 6, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> Nazi Germany was not very efficient  in terms of administration. You had overlapping  bureaucracy in which  you had competing power structures and agencies competed and fighting  against each other for money and favor from Hitler. And economically  the Reich was always one a war footing and one step ahead of economic collapse. In other world they had to keep on expanding or collapse. Of course the more they expand the bigger and more inefficient their government . But once they stop expanding, thats when the problems really begin to amplify for them.  They would collapsed in about 10 years or so after the war.


It wasn't just inefficiency - Hitler, being paranoid, ensured that his cohorts competed with each other in this way to prevent any of them becoming too powerful.  And orders were often not explicitly stated in detail - there was a concept of what Ian Kershaw calls "Working towards the Fuhrer" Ian Kershaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## pambaddeley (Mar 6, 2016)

I've seen a few documentaries and read a few books which say that we had a lucky escape with a lot of things ... that we could have been defeated if they had carried on bombing the airfields rather than turning on the cities for example.  The Nazis made a lot of bad decisions, quite often due to Hitler's obsessions, which were all lucky for us.


----------



## reiver33 (Mar 6, 2016)

We won the Battle of Britain because Goering was a dilettante and easily discouraged if a given plan failed to show immediate results. The Luftwaffe command initially allocated 3-4 days in which to destroy the RAF as an effective force, after which the focus would switch to pre-invasion targets. Even when taking on this (wildly optimistic) task there was a curious unreality; they attacked the RAF as a whole - airfields, radar stations, factories - and seemed to assume the destruction of Fighter Command would be a by-product, rather than the principle aim. Tactically they were screwed from the outset; fighters were tied to bomber escort duty and Goering even banned the use of drop-tanks on the grounds of cost! Being a technocratic organisation, the Luftwaffe fell into the trap of believing that if they didn't have a given (operational) technology, no one else would either - hence the 'blind spot' concerning radar. If you want a dispassionately frustrating read (as in 'Oh, for Gods sake!') then check out 'Luftwaffe: Strategy For Defeat'


----------



## WaylanderToo (Mar 6, 2016)

not stopping outside Dunkerque would have been quite a help too!! Had they managed to take the French fleet before Churchill ordered it sunk may well have made a difference as would Spain joining the conflict


----------



## reiver33 (Mar 6, 2016)

Hitler's famous 'halt' order following the race to the channel was symptomatic of the WWI thinking amongst elements in the high command; you needed infantry in place to guard the exposed flank of the armoured advance against the anticipated French counter-attack. And there must be an attack coming, from the reserve army positioned to cover the Allied move into Belgium, as that's what the Germans would have done in their position. Unfortunately for the Allies this French army had been moved to the extreme left of the line and was headed for Holland...

A tad more daring and the entire BEF in the Low Countries would have been cut-off. Even without that morale-building escape at Dunkerque I doubt Churchill would have considered coming to terms - his innate stubbornness and view of the 'Great British People' (and Empire) prevented him from seeing the long-term advantage of a face-saving peace treaty (you blame the French for surrendering). Apart from the 1500-odd aircraft left to prosecute the war against Britain the Germans would not have gained significantly by a peace deal when then attacked Russia (the occupation troops in in France, Belgium, etc. tended to be second-rate) - but that's another question!


----------



## The Ace (Mar 6, 2016)

pambaddeley said:


> Not just ideological; Hitler had been going on about 'lebensraum' for years Lebensraum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and wrote about it in Mein Kamp; the Nazis wanted the Russian territory for expansion of the German people who they felt were hemmed in.  Other countries such as Britain had empires and they made it clear that they wanted their own.



True, but the diametrical opposition of Nazism and Communism, coupled with Nazi racial theories (Slavs were sub-humans only fit for slavery or extinction), made it personal.

The World was astounded when they signed the non-aggression pact that doomed Poland.


----------



## reiver33 (Mar 6, 2016)

A short-sighted approach allowed Molotov to stiff the Germans over the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact; Russian got everything it wanted while secret protocols stopped the Germans creating a rump Poland as a sop to Western opinion. If the Germans had had anything approaching a long-term strategy then they would have simply re-establish their Eastern 1914 frontier and handed everything else over to the Soviet sphere of influence. Britain declined to declare war on the Soviet Union despite their annexation of Eastern Poland as the government recognised that the Allies could do nothing about it. Thus continuing the conflict against Germany would have been difficult to sustain given their 'legitimate' seizure of lost territory, as opposed to the rest of Poland.


----------



## The Ace (Mar 6, 2016)

The Soviets got half of Poland and a free hand in the Baltic States and Finland (admittedly, the last didn't work out too well for them).

Germany was able to strike into Western Europe unmolested (can you imagine the effect of a Soviet offensive in Spring 1940 ?).

Both knew the confrontation was coming, but pretended it wasn't so that they could deal with more pressing matters.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 6, 2016)

reiver33 said:


> We won the Battle of Britain because Goering was a dilettante and easily discouraged if a given plan failed to show immediate results. The Luftwaffe command initially allocated 3-4 days in which to destroy the RAF as an effective force, after which the focus would switch to pre-invasion targets. Even when taking on this (wildly optimistic) task there was a curious unreality; they attacked the RAF as a whole - airfields, radar stations, factories - and seemed to assume the destruction of Fighter Command would be a by-product, rather than the principle aim. Tactically they were screwed from the outset; fighters were tied to bomber escort duty and Goering even banned the use of drop-tanks on the grounds of cost! Being a technocratic organisation, the Luftwaffe fell into the trap of believing that if they didn't have a given (operational) technology, no one else would either - hence the 'blind spot' concerning radar. If you want a dispassionately frustrating read (as in 'Oh, for Gods sake!') then check out 'Luftwaffe: Strategy For Defeat'




Drop tanks on the fighters would have enable the Me 109's to stay in battle against the Spitfires longer, that might have had some impact on the battle of Britain but the end result would have still been much the same . Initially , the ME 109's Fuel injection gave it an edge in battle because the Spitfire carburetor design caused the plane stall in a dive, but that was quickly corrected .  Overall The Spitfire was still a slightly better aircraft then Me 109, it's  ellipse wing design gave it a better turning radius then then the Me 109.  Even the Hawker Hurricane which though not as advanced as the Spitfire could more then holds its own against Me 109.


----------



## reiver33 (Mar 6, 2016)

My point concerning the drop tanks was merely to illustrate that the Germans did themselvess no favors when taking on such a difficult task. In essence the Luftwaffe had fallen victim to 'victory disease', a consequence of which was that they considered the Battle of Britain a reverse, rather than defeat with far-reaching consequences.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Mar 6, 2016)

IIRC early in the war the one that was a nasty surprise for the allies was the FW190. The one that was a nasty surprise to the Axis was just how woeful the Me110 really was


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 6, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> IIRC early in the war the one that was a nasty surprise for the allies was the FW190. The one that was a nasty surprise to the Axis was just how woeful the Me110 really was



Me110 didn't fare too well against The Spire and Hurricanes.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Mar 6, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> Me110 didn't fare too well against The Spire and Hurricanes.




indeed - it was (if you'll forgive the slight pun) destroyed


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 6, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> Overall The Spitfire was still a slightly better aircraft then Me 109, it's ellipse wing design gave it a better turning radius then then the Me 109. Even the Hawker Hurricane which though not as advanced as the Spitfire could more then holds its own against Me 109.



I remember watching a program about the Battle of Britain a few years ago, and IIRC, the design success of both planes was down to total flukes. The original hurricane (again, IIRC) was made of wooden frame covered with canvas, simply because Britain was so strapped for resources (unlike the German's, who could cast their early Me's with metal frames - the preferred option). In theory, the German planes should have been superior - but the lighter materials in the British planes gave them superior manoeuvrability and therefore an extra advantage in dogfights.

Not sure how true it is, but I remember being surprised at the claims.


----------



## reiver33 (Mar 6, 2016)

The 110 compared really, really badly to the rival Henschel Hs 124 prototype twin-engined fighter but Messerschmidt got the contract because (a) it was their turn - Goerings bizarre approach to sourcing - and (b) they said it would be fine once equipped with the new Junker engines (which powered the Ju 88). Unfortunately Junkers refused to play ball and the 110 remained a dog, despite successive redesigns. It only came into its own as a specialized night-fighter.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 6, 2016)

Nice article here about the role of the Hurricane

Battle of Britain: without the hurricane the battle would have been lost

(another point about the cheap materials used by the Hurricane was that it was much easier to patch up when getting repaired.)


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 6, 2016)

reiver33 said:


> The 110 compared really, really badly to the rival Henschel Hs 124 prototype twin-engined fighter but Messerschmidt got the contract because (a) it was their turn - Goerings bizarre approach to sourcing - and (b) they said it would be fine once equipped with the new Junker engines (which powered the Ju 88). Unfortunately Junkers refused to play ball and the 110 remained a dog, despite successive redesigns. It only came into its own as a specialized night-fighter.



It seems that Herman Goering's decision making process did much to contribute to  failure of the Luftwaffe.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 7, 2016)

reiver33 said:


> My point concerning the drop tanks was merely to illustrate that the Germans did themselvess no favors when taking on such a difficult task. In essence the Luftwaffe had fallen victim to 'victory disease', a consequence of which was that they considered the Battle of Britain a reverse, rather than defeat with far-reaching consequences.



The Battle of Britain cost the Germans alot of their best pilots and aircrews. It weakened the Luftwaffe .


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 7, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> not stopping outside Dunkerque would have been quite a help too!! Had they managed to take the French fleet before Churchill ordered it sunk may well have made a difference as would Spain joining the conflict



That combined with what they already had would have given them larger surface fleet  and if you combined that with Italy's navy. That would have effectively closed off the Mediterranean to the allies. There is also the possibility that  end up controlling Gibraltar.  Egypt, The Suez Canal   and the whole of North Africa would have fallen under their control. It would have given them a stepping stone to middle eastern oil.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 11, 2020)

Brian G Turner said:


> I remember watching a program about the Battle of Britain a few years ago, and IIRC, the design success of both planes was down to total flukes. The original hurricane (again, IIRC) was made of wooden frame covered with canvas, simply because Britain was so strapped for resources (unlike the German's, who could cast their early Me's with metal frames - the preferred option). In theory, the German planes should have been superior - but the lighter materials in the British planes gave them superior manoeuvrability and therefore an extra advantage in dogfights.
> 
> Not sure how true it is, but I remember being surprised at the claims.



I don't know if this was true of the Hawker Hurricane but,  the Spitfires fuel tank under the pits seat, about 86 gallons worth of aviation fuel.  Not a happy thought if your the pilot.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Oct 11, 2020)

Germany had effectively won WWII. Mainland Western Europe had been conquered, and there was no significant threat to Germany. But then they declared war on Russia. 

Could Germany have defeated Britain? There are two arguments, one being that (provided she was supplied from her Empire and the US) Britain could go on indefintely as the Royal Navy was by far the Superior to Germany in terms of manpower, ships and (probably most important) experience. Britain had effectively dominated the waves for most of the last half a millenium, and there was no way that Germany could catch up that quickly.

The other argument is that when you consider just how much manpower and equipment was thrown against Russia, you have to suppose that if Germany had thrown everything against Britain with mass drops of parachutists combined with a seaborne assault along the Eastern and Southern coast of England and Scotland that a crack would have appeared. It would only take one or two succesful beachheads to have signalled the beginning of the end. It would no doubt have costs the lives of tens/hundreds of thousands of German lives lost, but when you consider the losses at Stalingrad alone you see just how vast were the manpower resources at Hitler's command.  

The danger with Hitler carrying out an all-out assault against Britain would be leaving him (relatively) defenceless in the East against Russia, so he probably (and possibly rightly) considered a land-based attack against Russia to be more likely to succeed than an aerial/naval  attack against Britain. Once either of these two foes were eliminated, the other would face the full force of Germany and almost certainly fall.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 11, 2020)

paranoid marvin said:


> Germany had effectively won WWII. Mainland Western Europe had been conquered, and there was no significant threat to Germany. But then they declared war on Russia.
> 
> Could Germany have defeated Britain? There are two arguments, one being that (provided she was supplied from her Empire and the US) Britain could go on indefintely as the Royal Navy was by far the Superior to Germany in terms of manpower, ships and (probably most important) experience. Britain had effectively dominated the waves for most of the last half a millenium, and there was no way that Germany could catch up that quickly.
> 
> ...



In the short term Stalin  had no immediate plans to move against Germany from the east. The treaty he signed was to buy himself time to rebuild his military.  I think it like that had Hitler    moved on Britain to conquer it , Stalin  would have  done nothing to all to Germany .  Stalin  would have let Hitler knock out Britain because  that would have remove one more obstacle to him eventually taking  all of Europe for himself. Eventually Stalin at a time of his one choosing would have gone after Hitler, that I believe. 

Could Hitler  have knocked out Britain ? Standing in his way was the Royal Navy which at that time was the most powerful navy in the world,  way more powerful and larger than the German navy and more the sufficient to block and destroy  cross channel invasion. The only possible way they might have been able to counter that in any way is had the gotten control of the  French battleships that that were destroyed  by the Royal Navy. Also if they could borrowed a few of Italys battleships. But even  then thye still had no aircraft career and I believe  that Britain did at that time ?

Their air campaign over Britain was never going to work because the German strategy was badly flawed. And as the battle progressed the moral of Germany airfare plummeted dramatically.  At the begin  the battle Germay had the world most powerful airfare , but the end ,that was no longer the case.  And even had they gotten troops on the gourd in Britain , they would had no armor an likely not controlled the skies. The Germans would have failed miserably in their invasion.


----------

