Could Germany have ever won WWII?

[BAYLOR]

Early in WWII, German military tactics were absolutely next-level compared to the rest of Europe. Their enemies didn't master the new, highly mobile mechanised /airborne infantry tactics until later in the war. It was the long-term strategic decisions (where Hitler had more of a say) where they kept going wrong.

Certainly, on the Western front Germany's main error was not pressing the attack against Britain. They had an opportunity to capture the entire British Expedtionary Force before Dunkirk, and they just didn't. They still assumed they would be able to negotiate with Britain, so treated their preparations for a seaborne invasion (Operation Sea Lion) as a last resort rather than a priority. When the air combat of the Battle of Britain didn't go their way (which was far from a foregone conclusion), Sea Lion got shelved. This left Britain as a staging post for the reconquest of Western Europe.

On the Eastern Front, the Battle of Stalingrad and the Seige of Leningrad stand out as a colossal errors. Germany completely abandoned the hyper-mobile approach that had served them so well in favour of a prolonged and brutal deadlock. Previously, they had been able to keep their casualties impressively low, but months of heavy fighting in Stalingrad chewed through their soldiers like a meat grinder. Meanwhile, Leningrad kept their troops pinned down and immobile for more than 2 years. A lot of this had to do with Hitler's determination to capture those two cities because of the ideological enemies they were named after. Passing them by was not an option, regardless of what his generals wanted.

Letting the British Army get away at Dunkirk and attacking Russia were two fateful and fatal decisions on the part of Germany.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I think Hitler and his genersls thought they'd pushed their luck as far as they ought. The majority of mainland Europe was now under German control, and their forces were stretched wafer thin. Remember that even in WWII, a significant part of the Wehrmacht was horse-powered. Do you risk a defeat at Dunkirk, and the resurgence of Allied forces, or regroup and then force your enemy into surrender once you know that tactical superiority is assured?

Tbe Germans had no way of knowing that the British could move so many so swiftly, but I don't think they were overly concerned. The British were being packed off back to Blighty confirming the German victory.

 

[BAYLOR]

I think Hitler and his genersls thought they'd pushed their luck as far as they ought. The majority of mainland Europe was now under German control, and their forces were stretched wafer thin. Remember that even in WWII, a significant part of the Wehrmacht was horse-powered. Do you risk a defeat at Dunkirk, and the resurgence of Allied forces, or regroup and then force your enemy into surrender once you know that tactical superiority is assured?

Tbe Germans had no way of knowing that the British could move so many so swiftly, but I don't think they were overly concerned. The British were being packed off back to Blighty confirming the German victory.

A Military defeat at Dunkirk could potentially havE lead to uprising which might have unraveled all of Germanys European conquests.

 

[paranoid marvin]

A Military defeat at Dunkirk could potentially havE lead to uprising which might have unraveled all of Germanys European conquests.

The British were still a formidable fighting force, and the French - although on the verge of defeat - had their forces largely intact.

The Germans also knew that their supply lines had been pushed hard, and that their main attacking force needed a good supply of fuel and ammo to keep going.

There were also still Allied forces fighting behind the German advance. It's not inconceivable (and certainly not from a German viewpoint) that trapped into a pocket and facing capture or death, the Allies had tried to push out, and perhaps even outflank the panzers and encircle them, cutting off their supply chain. This isn't too dissimilar to what happened at Stalingrad later in the war.

The British were falling back, they were heading for the harbour and a way home. They were putting up a formidable fighting retreat, but it was still a retreat. Better to lock up the area around Dunkirk, receive more supplies and reinforcements, and simply strafe/bomb the BEF into submission.

I think the one thing that Hitler definitely wasn't doing was 'letting the British off' and allowing their soldiers to go home. He was likely furious when he found out that a significant proportion of Britain's army had not been killed or captured. This would make any attempt at invasion much more dificult, and the prospect of a British surrender less likely. You don't hand your enemy a moral victory in war, despite how much you might like or admire him. The disgraceful treatment of British soldiers later in the war (eg Hitler's 'Commando Order' and the prosecution of 'terror flyers') demonstrates this.

 

[Judderman]

If Germany had not formed an alliance with Japan perhaps they could have taken over Europe. Or at least set a border at Russia. The US could have had a war with Japan without getting involved in Europe.

 

[BAYLOR]

If Germany had not formed an alliance with Japan perhaps they could have taken over Europe. Or at least set a border at Russia. The US could have had a war with Japan without getting involved in Europe.

Its not inconceivable that Roosevelt and his advisors could have manufactured a pretext fo some kind to get involved in the war against Germany.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Germany was sinking US shipping for months prior to Germany declaring war on the US. If Germany hadn't made the first move, it makes you wonder exactly what it would have taken for the US to make their participation official.

 

[Foxbat]

Can’t remember where but I was reading a piece by some historian a while back. It perhaps answered a mystery: why could a nation like Germany with its reputation for top notch engineering not come up with a decent long range bomber? Well, they did to an extent in the FW 200C Condor but it was only really used to bomb shipping. Derived form the civilian model, the Condor was the first aircraft in the 1930s (not including airships) to fly non-stop from Berlin to New York. It certainly had the range and could carry around 2500 pounds of bombs - nowhere near the 16000 pounds of a Lancaster but a decent amount.

The reason (apparently) that Germany struggled to design and build an effective strategic bomber was Hitler’s obsession with dive bombing. He insisted that all his bombers had some kind dive bombing capability. Even the one attempt at a real strategic bomber (He177 Greif) was to be a dive bomber. This meant additional weight and more complex engineering to build wings strong enough to stand the stresses of diving. Hitler himself, it could be argued, was the problem and gave German engineers an almost impossible task.

Heinkel He 177 Greif - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, to answer the question of the thread. Perhaps Germany might have won if they’d had a better leader

 

[BAYLOR]

Can’t remember where but I was reading a piece by some historian a while back. It perhaps answered a mystery: why could a nation like Germany with its reputation for top notch engineering not come up with a decent long range bomber? Well, they did to an extent in the FW 200C Condor but it was only really used to bomb shipping. Derived form the civilian model, the Condor was the first aircraft in the 1930s (not including airships) to fly non-stop from Berlin to New York. It certainly had the range and could carry around 2500 pounds of bombs - nowhere near the 16000 pounds of a Lancaster but a decent amount.

The reason (apparently) that Germany struggled to design and build an effective strategic bomber was Hitler’s obsession with dive bombing. He insisted that all his bombers had some kind dive bombing capability. Even the one attempt at a real strategic bomber (He177 Greif) was to be a dive bomber. This meant additional weight and more complex engineering to build wings strong enough to stand the stresses of diving. Hitler himself, it could be argued, was the problem and gave German engineers an almost impossible task.

Heinkel He 177 Greif - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, to answer the question of the thread. Perhaps Germany might have won if they’d had a better leader

Hitler made many many costly decisions the whole dive bomblingthing beignet of them. This obsessional also negatively impact ME 262 and development and deployment. The Henkel 178 was the firstoperatioal l jet which flew prior to the start of WWII . Had Hitler and the NAZi been capable of seeing th potential of Jet Airplanes and developing them sooner that could have significant implications for the outcome of the War II . But then again Britain could have given Frank Whittle and his jet program more attention and support then they did. Image a plane like the Gloucester meteor had been available to RAF as the outbreak of the Second World War ? Imagine thow much more damage that plane would have done to the German Luftwaffe if they had it at the Battle of Britain?

 

[BAYLOR]

If Germany had not formed an alliance with Japan perhaps they could have taken over Europe. Or at least set a border at Russia. The US could have had a war with Japan without getting involved in Europe.

Japan at the start of the war had a very powerful Navy but even with damage inflicted on the US Fleet at Pear Harbor, The US navy was still larger and, It didn't take all that long to repair and re-float the majority the ships damaged and sunk at Pearl Harbor. Japan lacked the necessary resources to win a sustained war , also the had approximately 1/5 the industrial capacity of the US meaning the US could out produce Japan in every category . Admiral Yamamoto who drafted and lead the attack on the US at Pearl Harbor knew that the only chance Japan might have to win was to win quick war with US. He knew that if turned into long draw out war, Japan would lose , he said as much to his superiors.

 

[paranoid marvin]

It's quite incredible now to think that the US adopted a 'Germany first' attitude after Pearl Harbour. In a different era or with a different President, the war in the Pacific would have been seen as the priority.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

It's quite incredible now to think that the US adopted a 'Germany first' attitude after Pearl Harbour. In a different era or with a different President, the war in the Pacific would have been seen as the priority.

In 1941, US had much closer allies and more important trading partners in Europe than in the countries being conquered by Japan.

England was under a real threat. Protecting England, an important investment and trade partner, was a priority. This also meant preventing Germany from establishing permanent control over Continental Europe.

In Asia Japan was fighting China (not much of a US ally) and a collection of European colonies. There was far less US investment and trade with any Asian country at the time than with essentially any country in Europe.
Even the US colonies in Asia/Pacific theater were strategically less important at the time. Hawaii was attacked, but the US felt that it was thoroughly reinforced and protected. Guam was further protected. Japan did take the US colony of the Philippines, but there was far less trade with them than any country of Europe.

Simply put, US allies took precedent.

 

[paranoid marvin]

In 1941, US had much closer allies and more important trading partners in Europe than in the countries being conquered by Japan.

England was under a real threat. Protecting England, an important investment and trade partner, was a priority. This also meant preventing Germany from establishing permanent control over Continental Europe.

In Asia Japan was fighting China (not much of a US ally) and a collection of European colonies. There was far less US investment and trade with any Asian country at the time than with essentially every country in Europe.
Even the US colonies in Asia/Pacific theater were strategically less important at the time. Hawaii was attacked, but the US felt that it was thoroughly protected. Guam was further protected. Japan did take the US colony of the Philippines, but there was far less trade with them than any country of Europe.

Simply put, US allies took precedent.

Totally agree. The threat from Germany far outweighed that of Japan. Having said that, there were many in the US who wanted and expected the major concentration of forces to be in the East rather than the West.


The rational, obvious solution is not always the road taken.

 

[Swank]

It may have also come down to what was easier. The Pearl attack didn't sink the whole fleet, but it did some damage. Atlantic assets were unaffected and we were already leaning that way.

Pearl was something of a blessing, because we weren't really interested in the Japanese, it gave us the excuse to enter the Europe war and it led to the fall of the Japanese empire.

 

[BAYLOR]

It's quite incredible now to think that the US adopted a 'Germany first' attitude after Pearl Harbour. In a different era or with a different President, the war in the Pacific would have been seen as the priority.

Prioritizing Japan over Germany would have been mistake . Without the US focusing most off its effort on Germany and aiding Britain and Russia and a delay any kind of Normany invasion The war would have could conceivably been prolong another 2 or 3 more years with even more lives lost. It might have given Germany more time to work out bugs from some their wonder weapons like the ME 262 and and V2 rocket. Thought we now know that German didn't have the resources to build the Cyclotrons needed for A bomb development and the rumor that Werner Heisenberg was actively delaying Germany's bomb program . It's possible that with the added time , those things might have been overcome and Germany ends up with the bomb And, add to the fact that they just might have found a way to place it any partial new and improved V2 rocket .

 

[Foxbat]

I'm going a little off topic (but not completely). I found this video amusing. Maybe we should start a new thread. Could Germany have won the war if it had F18 Hornets?

 

[BAYLOR]

I'm going a little off topic (but not completely). I found this video amusing. Maybe we should start a new thread. Could Germany have won the war if it had F18 Hornets?

Yes, the Spitfire an is a great plane unfortunately, against a hornet, the Spitfire would be very quickly blow to pieces.

I recall seeing a scenario a what if in which the Luftwaffe had the Horton Flying Wing at the Battle of Britain. That one didn't have happy ending for the RAF.


What would be my favoite Battle of Britain What If ? What if the RAF had had access to to fully operation Gloucester Meteor jet fighters ? That would have been fun , but not for the Luffwaffe,.

 

[BAYLOR]

If the war had gone on into 1946 and 1947 concievebely what you might have seen was jet fighter dog fights between the ME 262 and the Gloucester Meteors.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The Korean War was one of the first with jet fighter combat. This must have been real seat-of-the pants stuff. It must have taken real skill to fly planes at those speeds in aerial dogfights.

 

[Judderman]

.. Admiral Yamamoto who drafted and lead the attack on the US at Pearl Harbor knew that the only chance Japan might have to win was to win quick war with US. He knew that if turned into long draw out war, Japan would lose , he said as much to his superiors.

But still we go back to would the US have got involved in the European part of World War 2 if Japan had not been Germany's ally? Maybe so based on some of the other posts on the European trade importance.