Could Germany have ever won WWII?

[ralphkern]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.