How (if?) could Germany win WWII?

[euroquisling]

Hello everyone,

I'm a new user and I registered mainly for the purpose of discussing the question that fascinates me for a long time - if, and if yes, how could Germany win WWII?

Now I know this horse has been beaten to death ten times over, but come on, it's still interesting.

So here's my version of my speculative history:

1. Suppose Hitler were replaced in beginning of 1930s by someone more moderate in ideology (like Goering), but with competence of Speer. Say, a Night of Long Knives failed or someone survived that replied Hitler successfully in kind.

2. That guy immediately starts diplomatic efforts to mediate with UK as much as possible, all the while pouring as much money as reasonably possible into R&D of new battlefield technology and forces:

a. developing faster, armoured, more capable replacement for Stuka
b. standardizing & expanding fleet of military trucks
c. developing better technology for quick laying railroads and expanding industrial base that could be geared towards war purposes.
d. developing real naval aviation, for purpose of bombing shipping and naval reconnaisance
e. investment into radar comparable to the British and US effort
f. providing better working conditions, more investment & sustained programs to scientists and engineers instead of ad-hoc efforts
g. NOT involving in the rocket research that burned off lots of resources while providing little real value
h. letting Speer fully militarize German economy in 1936-1937.
i. mandate massive production of 88 mm gun not just for AA purposes, but mainly for antitank role.

3. Seeing that war with Soviet Union is inevitable - if Germany doesn't attack SU, SU will attack Germany - this guy mandates developing real panzer forces instead of providing jokes like PzKpfw I and II in place of real tanks to the military. That means massive production of Panther-like tank a few years before WWII. This was certainly possible, since Soviet Union pulled of exactly such a stunt by producing T-34 while having less technical talent & worse industrial capacity than Germany.

4. After conquering France, not getting into aerial war with UK, leaving it alone and letting on isolationist sentiment erode British will to fight instead of as it turned out, bombardment doing little but making British pissed off and resolved to defeating Germany. This does not necessarily exclude submarine warfare against shipping going to UK.

5. After launch of Barbarossa, treating Russians and other people in the East decently, at least for some time. Some historian wrote that if Hitler gave each Russian a loaf of bread and let him go back home, Germany would have won war in the East without much shooting. At the time, near anyone was better to Russians and Ukrainians than Stalin. Hitler due to extreme stupidity rivalled Stalin in being opressive. This did not have to happen. There were many Nazis that were even more radical than Hitler was, but there were also many more moderate and cleverer than Hitler.

6. After conquest of France, Germany could demand free pass from Spain in order to conquer Gibraltar with promise Spain would get it after war. If Spain didn't agree, just conquer it immediately instead of releasing much of German army back home. Spanish military wouldn't be much trouble.

7. Keep Mussolini from stupid adventures in Greece and Northern Africa, or alternatively, let his ass be beaten in North Africa, it's not like sand on North African coast is of strategic value.

8. Get Turkey into alliance before WWII and use it as launching base for attacks into Iraq and Iran and grabbing their oil. This also would have provided the base for attacking Soviet Union from the south, where it was most vulnerable.

9. Develop domestic oil exploration talent, get them to up to speed in Romania.

10. Kick Guderian's ass hard a few times so he behaves and puts his talent to achieving strategic goals instead of showing off.

11. Bottle up Stalingrad and keep them surrounded by Romanians, and push East instead of grinding 6th Army down in city that was already a rumble.

12. And finally, develop some strategy, with realistic goals and set out to achieve them.


All of this has to be balanced against a single factor that could still in my view kill Germany:

Industrial capacity of United States.


Did Germany still have a chance? What do you think?

[Rising Sun*]

Did Germany still have a chance? What do you think?

Probably not.

Something that is invariably overlooked is that Germany relied on horse transport more than any other major combatant, with consequent logistical burdens and movement limitations.

It's hard to win a mid 20th century war with 19th century lines of communication.

[Drake]

How :)? Put me in command :D

[Moreheaddriller]

U give me a f 15 and some bb guns and i could have beatin stalin

[Chevan]

Hello everyone,

I'm a new user and I registered mainly for the purpose of discussing the question that fascinates me for a long time - if, and if yes, how could Germany win WWII?

Hi.
Oh it easy to answer :)
If Poland joined to the Axis they could beat the Bloody Russians together:)
And liberate the Europe from the bolshevics and ...jew:)
Beside the Poland could get the big part Ukraine land from a Hitler:)
BTW you are no a first pole who such worry that germany losed the ww2?

[Rising Sun*]

U give me a f 15 and some bb guns and i could have beatin stalin

This is the first of your three utterly silly comments. Try not to make it four.

[Schwerpunkt]

You propose a scenario in which German victory is much more likely. However, ridding the Reich of Hitler would not have been easy. IMHO, the best, most competent, most brillian subsitute to become ReichsPresident (not furhrer) would have been General Feld-Marschall Irwin Johannes Eugen Rommel. A supreme strategist and even better tactician, as cincOKW, priorities would have been straightened out, rivalries crushed and every one pushing for one goal instead of one man's favor.
Interesting idea. Schwerepunkt

[32Bravo]

You propose a scenario in which German victory is much more likely. However, ridding the Reich of Hitler would not have been easy. IMHO, the best, most competent, most brillian subsitute to become ReichsPresident (not furhrer) would have been General Feld-Marschall Irwin Johannes Eugen Rommel. A supreme strategist and even better tactician, as cincOKW, priorities would have been straightened out, rivalries crushed and every one pushing for one goal instead of one man's favor.
Interesting idea. Schwerepunkt

Fortune favours the bold!

Rommel took chances and had his fingers burnt on more than one occassion. Being a good tactical leader in the field doesn't necessarily translate to becoming a good political leader. Many generals turned politician and recieved a lot of flak for their shortcomings e.g. Scipio, Wellington, Eisenower.

[Rising Sun*]

Rommel took chances and had his fingers burnt on more than one occassion. Being a good tactical leader in the field doesn't necessarily translate to becoming a good political leader. Many generals turned politician and recieved a lot of flak for their shortcomings e.g. Scipio, Wellington, Eisenower.

Exactly.

As for Rommel's military ability, considerable though it might have been, he had no experience commanding the size of formations on the Eastern Front, which was a vastly greater tactical and staff exercise than anything he'd done.

He's one of those characters like Patton. An able commander with a high public profile, which leads many to think he was the world's greatest commander because a lot of noise was made about him. The difference between him and Patton is that Patton thought he was the world's greatest commander (while MacArthur knew MacArthur was), where Rommel was less conceited. Probably one reason why Rommel was given active commands when there was a reluctance to give them to Patton.

As for replacing Hitler, this is fantasy stuff unless you get rid of Goering, Himmler, Goebbels, and a whole lot of other people and the organisations they controlled who would prevent Hitler being replaced by a given person.

It needs to be remembered that the Nazi Party controlled Germany. Unless that far-reaching apparatus could be overcome, the only people who were going to replace Hitler were people who were approved by the Party.

If von Stauffenberg had killed Hitler, thus demonstrating that he wasn't the incompentent assassin and coup artist he really was, so what? The Soviets sue for peace? The Western Allies hop on ships back to Britain, sorry for troubling the French? The rest of the Party, and the significant military elements which supported, decide to throw in their lot with the coup leaders? I doubt it.

The time to get rid of Hitler with any hope of altering the course of events was before the Party was entrenched in Germany, which was well before 1939.

Edit. Substitute mid-1941 for 1939.

[alephh]

5. After launch of Barbarossa, treating Russians and other people in the East decently, at least for some time.

Agree. IMO, the easiest way for Nazi Germany to win WWII is to treat properly (at least until the war vs Soviet Union is finished) the smaller nations of the Soviet Union. Tell and show Ukrainians/etc that they will be free country, and use them as soldiers, and also to spread disintegration/distrust to the surviving Soviet Union.

I just cannot see any way Germany can be a true worldpower (=win WWII) without the natural resources of Soviet Union. So, controlling them is the key to success.

7. Keep Mussolini from stupid adventures...
8. Get Turkey into alliance before WWII

Question is: How?

Hitler tried to do both (putting a lot of pressure to Turkey - but so did the Allies, and talk to some sense to Mussolini) but failed ;-D



Also,
I think that Rommel is one of the worst generals ever: losing all the WWII campaigns, ignoring intelligence information, murdering his own soldiers by ignoring supply-troubles, spending too much time away from HQ, being a nazi propaganda puppet. He was a great captain, but he just spent too much time crawling around frontline pillboxes to be able to manage any larger force.


_

[FW-190 Pilot]

i think hitler wasted a lot of resource on A-4 and long range tanks (useless in battle), he should imitate the soviet and tries to produce a tank that can both fight well and mass produced, like the T-34 tank. you are not going to win a lot of battle when your enmey out produce you 10:1.

[herman2]

Probably not.

Something that is invariably overlooked is that Germany relied on horse transport more than any other major combatant, with consequent logistical burdens and movement limitations.

It's hard to win a mid 20th century war with 19th century lines of communication.

If Germany only had the A-bomb, the war would have been over much sooner. They were very close to developing it. Germany would have sent more than 2 measley bombs the way the Americans did. I think sending only 2 A-bombs sens the wrong message. The more the merrier!

[Churchill]

Then you get fallout from the blasts, kill everybody, including your own soldiers and civillians, and you get murdered for causing nuclear anarchy because the USA attacked you and blew your ass up like a baloon...

[redcoat]

A easy way would be to keep Britain and France out of the war in the first place.

A way this could have been done was in not taking over the remaining western part of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. It was this act which caused the British government to abandon its appeasement policy,( this part of Czechoslovakia had no German majority) and seek a treaty with Poland guaranteeing its borders.

If they hadn't invaded Czechoslovakia, Britain would have not had any treaty with Poland so it would have been unlikely to have gone to war with Germany in September 39, and if Britain didn't go to war, its probable that the French wouldn't have either

[Rising Sun*]

A easy way would be to keep Britain and France out of the war in the first place.

A way this could have been done was in not taking over the remaining western part of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. It was this act which caused the British government to abandon its appeasement policy,( this part of Czechoslovakia had no German majority) and seek a treaty with Poland guaranteeing its borders.

If they hadn't invaded Czechoslovakia, Britain would have not had any treaty with Poland so it would have been unlikely to have gone to war with Germany in September 39, and if Britain didn't go to war, its probable that the French wouldn't have either

Could you expand with a bit more detail on that?

I'm ignorant in this area.

[Nickdfresh]

You propose a scenario in which German victory is much more likely. However, ridding the Reich of Hitler would not have been easy. IMHO, the best, most competent, most brillian subsitute to become ReichsPresident (not furhrer) would have been General Feld-Marschall Irwin Johannes Eugen Rommel. A supreme strategist and even better tactician, as cincOKW, priorities would have been straightened out, rivalries crushed and every one pushing for one goal instead of one man's favor.
Interesting idea. Schwerepunkt


We're also assuming that the new fuhrer would have followed Hitler's policies which led to WWII. I used to have a book (going back home this week, so I'll see what I can dig up) that stated some other hypotheticals such as another authoritarian movement taking over, perhaps a dictator from the Reichswehr, with temporary under emergency powers or otherwise, taking over. The book also listed one or two other hypothetical candidates that could have supplanted Hitler and the Nat'l Socialist movement.

The verdict was that they would have been far more moderate in regards to social policies and there would have been no Holocaust and less political repression. But on the flip side, they would have been much more competent, less ideological and more realistic, in regards to foreign policies. The overall verdict is that if it came to War, they would have been much more difficult to defeat. But, that all out war would have been far less likely, but hardly impossible given the economic state of Germany and the bitterness towards the French over Versailles and to the Poles for the border wars after WWI...

Then of course, they still would have been anti-Bolshevik --since it would have been the same Freikorp gang that fought them in 1919...

[redcoat]

Could you expand with a bit more detail on that?

I'm ignorant in this area.
Its about the German seizure of the remainder of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939. It was this act which broke the Munich Agreement, and forced the British and French governments to accept that their policy of appeasement had failed.
In an effort to halt any further German aggression in Europe, they signed a treaty with Poland guaranteeing her borders later in the same month, in the vain hope it would convince Hitler that any attempt to seize more territory would be too risky as it would involve him in a war with both Britain and France.

My argument is.. that if Hitler hadn't seized Bohemia and Moravia, there would have been no treaty with Poland in place, and therefore no legal or moral requirement to declare war on Germany due to its invasion of Poland

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/munich-agreement/

[Rising Sun*]

Its about the German seizure of the remainder of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939. It was this act which broke the Munich Agreement, and forced the British and French governments to accept that their policy of appeasement had failed.
In an effort to halt any further German aggression in Europe, they signed a treaty with Poland guaranteeing her borders later in the same month, in the vain hope it would convince Hitler that any attempt to seize more territory would be too risky as it would involve him in a war with both Britain and France.

My argument is.. that if Hitler hadn't seized Bohemia and Moravia, there would have been no treaty with Poland in place, and therefore no legal or moral requirement to declare war on Germany due to its invasion of Poland

Thanks.

But in the end, do you think that Hitler would still have gone to war in one way or another, over one thing or another?

Was seizing Bohemia and Moravia something that Hitler did because he sensed his opponents were weak; a provocation to test his opponents and gauge their reaction, in the nature of a probe; or something that he was always going to do?

I'm rusty on this, and obviously rusty shading into ignorant on the lead up to the war in Europe, but my recollection is that German troops disguised as Polish troops attacked a German radio station as the pretext for the invasion of Poland. If so, it demonstrates a determination to create the conditions for invading Poland anyway.

It also demonstrates German contempt for the Franco-British alliance with Poland.

Was Hitler betting on France and Britain not honouring their treaty with Poland, or was he trying to draw them into a war with Germany?

(I know I should know these things, but if ever I did they're long gone from my ossified brain.)

[redcoat]

Agree. IMO, the easiest way for Nazi Germany to win WWII is to treat properly (at least until the war vs Soviet Union is finished) the smaller nations of the Soviet Union. Tell and show Ukrainians/etc that they will be free country, and use them as soldiers, and also to spread disintegration/distrust to the surviving Soviet Union.

I just cannot see any way Germany can be a true worldpower (=win WWII) without the natural resources of Soviet Union. So, controlling them is the key to success.
The German's couldn't do this. While planning the invasion of the Soviet Union they worked out they could only supply their armies by stripping the conquered countryside of its food stocks and other goods, leaving the people of these areas to suffer starvation and deprivation.

The following passage is from the book "Poland to Pearl Harbor: The Making of the Second World War", by William Carr, 1985.

Page 123:


Simple arithmetic deluded many experts into the belief that a war of exploitation could solve their economic problems permanently. For example, pre-war Europe (excluding Russia) consumed 142.5 million tons of grain of which she produced 132 million tons. The shortfall was made up with 10.5 million tons of imported grain, not available in wartime. Russia produced about 100 million tons of grain of which she exported only 2.5 million tons. Goering's economic experts planned to seize between 8 and 10 million tons of this grain to make up for the shortfall without any regard for the effect this would have on the Russian people. The Nazi leadership felt no sense of moral responsibility for the fate of 'racial inferiors' in the east; they were only statistics to be crossed off the ledger to maintain the living standards of the 'higher' races. Goering's Economic Staff East, an office created in April 1941 to deal specifically with the exploitation of the Russian economy in the short-term interest of the Third Reich, spelt it out in all its stark brutality in a directive in May 1941: "Many tens of millions of people will become redundant and will either die or have to emigrate to Siberia. Any attempt to save the population there from death by starvation by importing surpluses from the black soil zone would be at the expense of supplies to Europe. It would reduce Germany's staying power in the war, and would undermine Germany's and Europe's power to resist the blockade. This must be clearly and absolutely understood'.

[redcoat]

Thanks.

But in the end, do you think that Hitler would still have gone to war in one way or another, over one thing or another? Yes, without question.

Was seizing Bohemia and Moravia something that Hitler did because he sensed his opponents were weak; a provocation to test his opponents and gauge their reaction, in the nature of a probe; or something that he was always going to do?
It was just unfinished business to him. He didn't expect Britain and France to do anything about it

I'm rusty on this, and obviously rusty shading into ignorant on the lead up to the war in Europe, but my recollection is that German troops disguised as Polish troops attacked a German radio station as the pretext for the invasion of Poland. If so, it demonstrates a determination to create the conditions for invading Poland anyway.
Hitler did indeed want a war with Poland, it was a first step in gaining 'living space' for the Greater German Reich, and putting him in position to attack the Soviet Union, the next step in his plans.

It also demonstrates German contempt for the Franco-British alliance with Poland.

Was Hitler betting on France and Britain not honouring their treaty with Poland, or was he trying to draw them into a war with Germany?

(I know I should know these things, but if ever I did they're long gone from my ossified brain.)Hitler was convinced that Britain and France wouldn't honour the treaty, and it was a total shock to him when they did do so.

When Hitler invaded Poland, he did want war, a Polish-German war, he didn't want the war he actually got.

[Rising Sun*]

"Many tens of millions of people will become redundant and will either die or have to emigrate to Siberia. Any attempt to save the population there from death by starvation by importing surpluses from the black soil zone would be at the expense of supplies to Europe. It would reduce Germany's staying power in the war, and would undermine Germany's and Europe's power to resist the blockade. This must be clearly and absolutely understood'.

More lives condemned by the stroke of a pen!

More evidence that the pen in the hand of a clear eyed and emotionless bureaucrat can be mightier than thousands of swords. :evil:


On a less emotional level, and given German military and agricultural reliance on horse transport during WWII, was any of the new grain to be used for fuelling horses? If so, there may be a degree of diminishing returns to the extent that horses are used for transporting grain while consuming it.

[Rising Sun*]

Oh now your ignorant in this area. In the other note string you were the "know it all" of all war relared topics.It amazes me that you actually admit your ignorant. It doesn't surprise me at all.


Stick around, sonny boy, and learn how adults deal with things.

Unlike your magnificent twelve year old grasp of nuking everything to end WWII by Christmas 1941, not to mention the magnificence of the Italians compared with the pathetic Japanese, some of us don't know everything and aren't afraid to admit it. So we ask those who do to inform us. Which isn't something you'll ever experience, as you already know everything. It's just a pity that you fail to demonstrate that in your simplistic and puerile posts.

You might like to have your English teacher explain to you that there is an inconsistency in saying that something amazes you and then saying that it doesn't surprise you.

[Chevan]

My argument is.. that if Hitler hadn't seized Bohemia and Moravia, there would have been no treaty with Poland in place, and therefore no legal or moral requirement to declare war on Germany due to its invasion of Poland
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/munich-agreement/
But this would not guaranty the defence of France.
Don't forget Hitler after the capturing of Chehoslovakia and Poland should have been seriously increase the GErmans military and economical abilities.This fact worry the both France and Britain.
So the both should do sometheng to prevent cupturing the Poland.The Polish treaty wasn't the best, but it was attempt at least to do something
The Germany was going to the Great war- and there is no any more reasons to be blind further.
The Britain did what it have to do.

[BearMgk]

well if gemans would win world war two maybe it would better and maybe it would be worse we will never know

[Drake]

well if gemans would win world war two maybe it would better and maybe it would be worse we will never know

I think it would be much worse for any non german if we had won ww2 and when it comes to personal freedoms etc. even for germans, though we probably wouldn't realize it or care because of all the propaganda and mass hypnosis.

But I honestly think the world would have been a better (in the sense of more peaceful) place if we had managed an early victory in the west in 1914, since this would most likely have prevented communism/stalinism in russia (lenin stays in exile) and the rise of facism/national socialism in germany and everything that evolved from those two isms. Consequently this could mean no ww2 at all.

[namvet]

don't bite off more than you can chew????? he declared war on the world. and the world won !!!!!:)

[Jagdtiger]

It is very very very very unlikely that Germany could have ever won the war. They would have been, and were, eventually just over come with industrial power and sheer numbers. Also they never could have truly won the war with the US involved because they could never have pulled off an invasion of the US.

Also the argument about the seizing of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939 makes no sense at all. First of all I doubt that England would have just allowed Germany to try and take over the entire world just because they hadn't invaded some small area in 1939. also Germany attacked France so therefore France is obviously brought into war, and also France is an ally of Britain so I think if they hadn't done anything by then they probably would have stepped in then anyway.

[Warpig]

well if gemans would win world war two maybe it would better and maybe it would be worse we will never know

Everyone east and west of Germany would be enslaved or dead since it wouldnt stop at the slavs, eventually world would face either total or nuclear war since the Nazi regime required war to keep going, the "maybe it would be better" in the face of the fact that Germans planned wholesale extermination of upwards to 200 milion people makes you an ignorant idiot, think before writing in the future.

As for Nazi victory, just take out Hitler of the equasion and the war is over by 1943, D day never happens and if it does it meets a full scale german military machine and gets firmly kicked in the butt.

[BearMgk]

Everyone east and west of Germany would be enslaved or dead since it wouldnt stop at the slavs, eventually world would face either total or nuclear war since the Nazi regime required war to keep going, the "maybe it would be better" in the face of the fact that Germans planned wholesale extermination of upwards to 200 milion people makes you an ignorant idiot, think before writing in the future.

As for Nazi victory, just take out Hitler of the equasion and the war is over by 1943, D day never happens and if it does it meets a full scale german military machine and gets firmly kicked in the butt.


i never sayed that it would be better read before posting idiot i sayed we would never know

[Firefly]

i never sayed that it would be better read before posting idiot i sayed we would never know

Take it from me. The best way to lose any respect here is to name call. Calling someone an idiot isnt necessary and isnt adult.

Please conduct yourself more civily in future, thanks.

[Nickdfresh]

...

I'm rusty on this, and obviously rusty shading into ignorant on the lead up to the war in Europe, but my recollection is that German troops disguised as Polish troops attacked a German radio station as the pretext for the invasion of Poland. If so, it demonstrates a determination to create the conditions for invading Poland anyway.
...

Actually, it was condemned German prisoners forced to don Polish uniforms and equipment. They were then machine-gunned down to provide photographic "proof"...

edit: Ha! Not quite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

The Gleiwitz incident was a staged attack on 31 August 1939 against the German radio station Sender Gleiwitz in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany (since 1945: Gliwice, Republic of Poland) on the eve of World War II in Europe.

This provocation was one of several actions in Operation Himmler, a Nazi Germany SS project to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which would be used to justify the subsequent invasion of Poland.
Contents
[hide]

Events at Gleiwitz

Much of what is known about the Gleiwitz incident comes from the sworn affidavit of Alfred Naujocks at the Nuremberg Trials. According to his testimony, the incident was organized by Naujocks under orders from Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich Müller, the chief of the Gestapo.[1]

On the night of August 31, 1939 a small group of German operatives, dressed in Polish uniforms and led by Naujocks[2] seized the Gleiwitz station and broadcast a short anti-German message in Polish (sources vary on the content on the message). The Germans' goal was to make the attack and the broadcast look like the work of anti-German Polish saboteurs.[3][2]

In order to make the attack seem more convincing, the Germans brought in Franciszek Honiok, a German Silesian known for sympathizing with the Poles, who had been arrested the previous day by the Gestapo. Honiok was dressed to look like a saboteur; then killed by lethal injection, given gunshot wounds, and left dead at the scene, so that he appeared to have been killed while attacking the station. His corpse was subsequently presented as proof of the attack to the police and press.[4]

In addition to Honiok, several other convicts from the Dachau concentration camp[2] were kept available for this purpose.[3] The Germans referred to them by the code phrase "Konserve" ("canned goods"). For this reason some sources incorrectly refer to the incident as "Operation Canned Goods".

[Rising Sun*]

Take it from me. The best way to lose any respect here is to name call. Calling someone an idiot isnt necessary and isnt adult.

Please conduct yourself more civily in future, thanks.

With my customary trepidation in offering any comment upon a mod's actions ;), might I say that Warpig initiated it at #29

Everyone east and west of Germany would be enslaved or dead since it wouldnt stop at the slavs, eventually world would face either total or nuclear war since the Nazi regime required war to keep going, the "maybe it would be better" in the face of the fact that Germans planned wholesale extermination of upwards to 200 milion people makes you an ignorant idiot, think before writing in the future.

[Rising Sun*]

But I honestly think the world would have been a better (in the sense of more peaceful) place if we had managed an early victory in the west in 1914, since this would most likely have prevented communism/stalinism in russia (lenin stays in exile) and the rise of facism/national socialism in germany and everything that evolved from those two isms. Consequently this could mean no ww2 at all.

Doesn't that assume that Britain accepted a German conquest of France etc and reached a truce with Germany?

Was that likely?

[Drake]

Doesn't that assume that Britain accepted a German conquest of France etc and reached a truce with Germany?

Was that likely?

What else should they do? Blockading the entire continent would be impossible, so Germany could import vital stuff through France, Spain and Italy. No way Italy joins the entente in that case, they're greedy but not insane. Maybe they even honor their pact and declare war on britain. They seem to have the tendency to do that when they see someone approaching the finish line.
Russia will be gone pretty fast when it faces the majority of the German army and not just 1/8.
The UK would have to bite the bullet, abandon the balance of power policy and accept German hegemony on the continent. I see no other option.
They could of course continue the hostilities at sea, but they'd probably face a blockade themselves with cruisers and subs based in France as in 1940 (and possibly invasion, if Germany, Italy and Austria combine their fleets, maybe they even get a hand on parts of the French fleet). But I can't really see the benefits for the UK from continued hostilities. It's not like in 1940 when losing wasn't really an option for the civilized world.
Belgium would lose independence, France would lose some colonies but I'd assume Germany would offer acceptable conditions, pretty much a white peace, to Britain.

[Rising Sun*]

Blockading the entire continent would be impossible, so Germany could import vital stuff through France, Spain and Italy.

I don't know enough to know what needed to be imported, but if it had to come from outside the Mediterranean then the approaches to the Straits of Gibraltar would be the naval battleground so far as concerns anything coming through southern Spain, Italy and southern France was concerned. Germany's problem there is that it had to negotiate the fleet blockading the Straits to get vessels into the Med.

Britain could probably blockade the Straits fairly easily.

Russia will be gone pretty fast when it faces the majority of the German army and not just 1/8.

Perhaps, but why is that a problem for Britain on the other side of the Channel?

Was Germany a better invasion threat in 1914-15 than it was in WWII?

The UK would have to bite the bullet, abandon the balance of power policy and accept German hegemony on the continent. I see no other option.

Possibly. Or just rely on naval power to try to confine Germany's influence.

The resolution would probably be determined by trade needs rather than naval power, e.g. if one was starving the other into submission then a truce became more likely. I don't know enough - or anything - about the trade aspects to know which would have to bend first. I suspect that both could probably survive for a long time.

Belgium would lose independence, France would lose some colonies but I'd assume Germany would offer acceptable conditions, pretty much a white peace, to Britain.

I think the colonial aspect could be very important.

Part of Germany's motivations in both wars came from becoming a nation much later than its major rivals, so it missed out on the best colonial possessions.

I don't know how important it would be to Britain to deny Germany the French and Belgian colonies, but that aspect might bear on the prospect of a negotiated peace.

History tells us that nations will often accommodate the realities of war gains by coming to an agreement with the enemy, but it also tells us that nations can be very difficult and fight hard over fairly minor issues, as Britain did with the Falklands and Argentina.

I wouldn't bet on Britain coming to terms with Germany just because Germany conquered France and Belgium in 1914.

I think the opposite might be more likely.

And it could be that a purely naval conflict would have given Britain advantages it lacked on land 1914-18, but I'll leave that to the naval experts here.

[Drake]

I don't know enough to know what needed to be imported, but if it had to come from outside the Mediterranean then the approaches to the Straits of Gibraltar would be the naval battleground so far as concerns anything coming through southern Spain, Italy and southern France was concerned. Germany's problem there is that it had to negotiate the fleet blockading the Straits to get vessels into the Med.


The critical issue for germany in ww1 was food. If you don't have a fighting war of the dimensions of the western front, the whole industrial demand for raw materials can probably be met by continental ressources (with the exception of some exotic stuff like rubber, but they somehow managed to get along IOT, so I guess they'd get along there, too).


Britain could probably blockade the Straits fairly easily.


Maybe, but the straits is insignificant since Spain and France have ports on the atlantic coast as well.


Perhaps, but why is that a problem for Britain on the other side of the Channel?


It's not an additional problem for Britain, but one less problem for Germany, that's why I mentioned it. Peace in the east opens other traderoutes again as well.


Was Germany a better invasion threat in 1914-15 than it was in WWII?


They had at least a bigger fleet and marines. I doubt however, that this would have ever become a viable option. Germany would probably have responded in kind to naval blockade and simply ignored Britain otherwise.


And it could be that a purely naval conflict would have given Britain advantages it lacked on land 1914-18, but I'll leave that to the naval experts here.

Well, Germany is not as powerful at sea, that's true, but in the long run FAR more powerful economically with the entire continent at their disposal.

[Warpig]

i never sayed that it would be better read before posting idiot i sayed we would never know

Yes we would know, Germans planned on gassing half the Europe and making the survivors into illiterate serfs, we do have Nazi plans for what they wanted to do after WW2 so we know perfectly how would it be.

[B5N2KATE]

Must disagree with the statement of "Reckless Erwin Rommel" as a "supreme strategist".

I could start a link on this very issue....

As for this thread, it really did not matter how Germany conducted it's affairs, even if Russia had been knocked out of the contest, they still would have sat back in mid-1945 and watched Grossdeutschland reduced to an atomic wasteland by a United States sick and tired of the war in Europe...

of that you can be sure....

[Drake]

Must disagree with the statement of "Reckless Erwin Rommel" as a "supreme strategist".

I could start a link on this very issue....

As for this thread, it really did not matter how Germany conducted it's affairs, even if Russia had been knocked out of the contest, they still would have sat back in mid-1945 and watched Grossdeutschland reduced to an atomic wasteland by a United States sick and tired of the war in Europe...

of that you can be sure....

Where were all those nukes supposed to come from and what should be the significant difference to the people on the ground compared to raids like Hamburg and Dresden?

[herman2]

With my customary trepidation in offering any comment upon a mod's actions ;), might I say that Warpig initiated it at #29

In referrence to the obvious problems that would of been created had Germany continued the war, it seems obvious that the best plan of action at the time, would of been a Blitzkrieg of Atomic bombs shot all over Berlin to neutralize Hitler wherever he may be hiding.:)

[Major Walter Schmidt]

And where would all the bombs come from? :roll:

[herman2]

And where would all the bombs come from? :roll:

There is an old saying that if you build it, they will come. I can bet that had Germany succeeded more at the end of the war then the USA would have no doubt sped up their atomic research abilities and mass produced the A-bomb quicker than it did. Where there is a will there is a way and it would of/could of been done.

[Major Walter Schmidt]

From what I read, the Los Alamos team was doing it the fastest they could. Correct me if Im wrong.

[General Hagar]

From December 11 1941 Germany was doomed. Declareing war on the USA while at war with Britain and the Soviet Union was the final nail that doomed Germany

[BearMgk]

After WW2 The usa became superpower before that it was nothing...
if USA vs Germany would fight in a clean war the Geries would win

[imi]

I don't know.I sure about that when the nazis win the war many people must die,but the allies won the war,then others must to die

[Moreheaddriller]

despite my first dumb but hilarious answer i think if Germany had a different commander such as Rommel or Goring or even Jodl and they would have focused not on starting the eastern front but commited to the western front then i think Germany would have won

[BearMgk]

Take it from me. The best way to lose any respect here is to name call. Calling someone an idiot isnt necessary and isnt adult.

Please conduct yourself more civily in future, thanks.



Hmm did you read the message that he wrote? he sayed me first idiot.... but nvm