The easiest thing Germany could have done to win the war.


  • @Wolfshanze:

    @Imperious:

    All Hitler would need to do is after finishing off France, be the best of friends with Stalin and even use him to take the UK colonial assets within reach with the spoils going to each party in a fair way. Make peace with UK or bomb them into rubble and never get allied with Japan or DOW USA. After this just let the holdings percolate for at least 20 years.

    Not the dumbest thing Hitler could have done to be sure… there is merit here…

    Uh, no.

    The basic premise of the question was what could Germany have done that was relatively minor that could have influenced the war.  Saying that Hitler could have joined forces with Stalin is absurd.  The ability of Hitler to have a legit alliance with Communist Russia is like saying the war would have ended up differently had Hitler converted to Judaism.  The non-aggression pact was about 2 gangsters dividing turf, and at the soonest op. one of them made a grab for the other’s turf (Barbarossa).  Had France not been conquered so quickly and trench warfare started up again the U.S.S.R. would have attacked in the same land grab that Germany did in 41.

    The idea of a real German/Soviet alliance is about as real as an American/Soviet alliance during the cold war.


  • @Karl7:

    All interesting points, and I will only add this:

    It seems odd to me that Germany would not have driven a harder position regarding a negotiated settlement with the UK after the fall of France.  I know there were some tepid efforts that went nowhere.  But what if Germany delivered an “inverted ultimatum” in which Germany declared it was going to unilaterally conclude a final peace treaty with France and then withdraw from France. (Albeit France would be under a right-wing, Vichy-ish government.),

    What would UK have done?  Said no?  The UK people would have continued supporting a war government that was going to “reinvade” France?  The US would have been off-footed too.  The UK would no longer been under threat, taking the wind out of the US interventionist sails.

    I think such a deft move would have thrown the UK off balance.  Why go on fighting after a bruising loss when the enemy is ostensibly giving up its gains?

    True Italy would have been a problem to get to go along given they were losing their colonies, but if I were Hitler I would have said, “tough luck.”

    My understanding was the Hitler never intended to “conquer” the west, just defeat them so as Germany could move eastward without a potential 2nd front in the rear.

    I like your point here.  Perhaps more of an effort to end the war in 40 would have been the best way to go.  I am not sure if Hitler would have turned unoccupied France into a Vichy like system.  I think Vichy was created because France was Germany’s west flank and it had to be protected.  Because Hitler was so into revenge for WW1 I think he would have set up reparations for France to pay and limit their military had Britain agreed to end the war.

    While I agree that is the least intrusive as far as German/Nazi mentality during the war, Hitler was a stupid gambler.

    It is a dumb game show, but if you have ever watched “Deal or No Deal”, you would know it is a game of chance about really dumb people (usually) going for the big money even though the math does not add up.  Their greed gets in the way, and they fail.  I don’t think Hitler had it in him to stop in 40.  He was just too dumb.


  • Two things here:

    1: Vichy France was a necessary thing for Hitler because I believe he didn’t have the ability to take control of French colonies because Germany didn’t have the navy to do it and I think a puppet France would eventually be taken directly over if Germany won.

    2: I don’t buy that crap that Germany and USSR couldn’t be allies if it came down to it. While I agree they both hate a distrust of each other and why wouldn’t they, both sides fought each other in Spain. You can find opinions of Stalin/Hitler talking about possible alliances with the other. Stalin openly said he would of gladly joined Germany in France if he was asked and would of asked Hitler for assistance against Finland if UK/France entered Finland.

    Oh and I don’t buy that crap that comparing Germany/USSR alliance would be the same as US/USSR alliance in the Cold War because US/USSR ended up technically be allies in the Iran-Iraq war.


  • @Caesar:

    1: Vichy France was a necessary thing for Hitler because I believe he didn’t have the ability to take control of French colonies because Germany didn’t have the navy to do it and I think a puppet France would eventually be taken directly over if Germany won.

    Germany had the ability.
    BUT: It would have bind necessary resources needed for the east campaign.

    @Caesar:

    2: I don’t buy that crap that Germany and USSR couldn’t be allies if it came down to it. While I agree they both hate a distrust of each other and why wouldn’t they, both sides fought each other in Spain. You can find opinions of Stalin/Hitler talking about possible alliances with the other. Stalin openly said he would of gladly joined Germany in France if he was asked and would of asked Hitler for assistance against Finland if UK/France entered Finland.

    Communism and nationalism don’t go well along.
    The Ribbentrop pact alliance was a military pact and not of the idealogies.
    Sooner or later they would have killed each other off anyway.


  • Sooner or later yes however we’re talking about military politics which always differs from civilian politics. Why is it that everyone find the idea of Hitler and Stalin being possible allies alien yet, the western allies spent years trying to destroy communism yet we ended up allies with Stalin? Military campaigns always change alliances because Sun Tzu golden rule never changed regardless of ideals. Enemy of enemy is my friend. This rule is universal. You can argue with me Stalin Hitler alliance was unlikely and it was, but don’t sit here and pretend it would be impossible when it almost happened twice.


  • It is pretty simple. While AH and JS build an informal group, the Western Allies had an formal group. AH and JS had no common goals nor projects nor anything likely in common.
    The Western Allies had. AH and JS joint for a short time together but after the goal was reach they had nothing to keep the group alive and left the alliance.


  • @Caesar:

    Sooner or later yes however we’re talking about military politics which always differs from civilian politics. Why is it that everyone find the idea of Hitler and Stalin being possible allies alien yet, the western allies spent years trying to destroy communism yet we ended up allies with Stalin? Military campaigns always change alliances because Sun Tzu golden rule never changed regardless of ideals. Enemy of enemy is my friend. This rule is universal. You can argue with me Stalin Hitler alliance was unlikely and it was, but don’t sit here and pretend it would be impossible when it almost happened twice.

    Good points, on which here are a few follow-up thoughts.  It’s very true that alliances can change over time in dramatic ways.  In 1915, for example, the French and the British were allies against Germany; a hundred years earlier, at Waterloo, the British and the Germans were allies against France.  (When Blucher arrived with his army at the tail end of the battle, he reputedly embraced Wellington and exclaimed, “Ach, mein lieber Kamerad, quelle affaire!”)  And although some wartime alliances are indeed “natural” alliances between ideologically similar powers, other alliances are very much temporary alliances of convenience between powers who detest each other.  The Soviet/Anglo-American alliance in WWII was a classic case, i.e. an alliance of circumstance between the godless communists and the decadent capitalists against the fascist regime they both disliked and feared more than each other…and even on the Anglo-American side, there was no love lost between the Brits and the Yankees.  And regarding the Nazi-Soviet thing, it should be remembered that powers have more options open to them than a simple binary choice between being allies and being enemies; a third option that’s often exercised is “mutually suspicious co-existence.”  That’s roughly what the relationship was between the US and the USSR during the Cold War, and it’s certainly a credible scenario for the relationship that Hitler and Stalin might have maintained over the medium to long term (even if only to given themselves more time to prepare for a military showdown).  That relationship certainly existed in the short term, beginning with the establishment of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939 and ending with the start of Barbarossa in June 1941.


  • Yes, I agree Germany ended such an alliance, end of story. However, given that if several allied powers said yes instead of no. Course of WWII could of gone differently. Obviously, my point is moot because we live in 2017 and seeing everything in history. However, France and UK almost joined Finland against USSR. Stalin would of asked Hitler for help, what kind and how much? I personally have no idea. Stalin hoped Hitler would of been bogged in France like Germany was in WWI and Stalin said he would help Hitler conquer France, that of course didn’t happen. Germany basically steamed rolled France. Six weeks which is incredibly fast when you think about it.


  • As you say, we’re limited to speculation when it comes to considering historical what-ifs, so it’s impossible to nail down what would have happened if Britain and France had joined Finland’s side in the Winter War against the USSR.  For whatever it’s worth, however, here are some thoughts on the subject.

    An important point to remember is that “going to war” during the WWII era took many different forms.  The form we tend to think of is a full-scale general war, in which Power X invades the territory of Power Y on a massive scale with the aim of destroying its armed forces and conquering its territory; the German campaign against France in May-June 1940 was one such case, and the German invasion of the USSR in June 1941 was another one.  There are other gradations of war, however. For example, Japan and the USSR fought a couple of undeclared, low-level wars with each other in the late 1930s along the borders of Manchuria and Mongolia.  Those conflicts are little-known because they were short and localized and relatively inconsequential in terms of territory change…though they did have strategic importance, in the sense that they were part of the reason why Japan and the USSR eventually signed a non-aggression pact.

    An even better example would be the Phony War phase of WWII, from September 1939 to May 1940, because it potentially parallels what might have happened if Britain and France had declared war on the Soviet Union to support Finland.  “What might have happened” might actually have been “very little.”  Britain and France declared war on Germany in early September 1939 to support Poland…but other than clearing German shipping from the sea, they basically sat on their hindquarters until the following spring, even though the border between Germany and France was minimally defended by Germany (whose army was concentrated in Poland).  France did launch the so-called “Saar Offensive”, which basically involved a few French troops advancing a few miles into German territory.  Their advance was unopposed.  France and Britain got some great newsreel footage out of this, but they did little else; sometime later the French quietly withdrew back to the Maginot Line.  Given how pathetically unenterprising they were at crossing the border between their own country and Germany (something which can be done with a single footstep), I find it hard to imagine that the French would have posed any credible threat to the Soviet Union if they had declared war against Stalin and had announced that they were going to send an expeditionary force to the Russo-Finnish border.  Ditto for the British: during the Phony War, Chamberlain thought that the nasty business of combat could be avoided by, among other things, using RAF bombers to drop propaganda leaflets on Germany to convince its citizens that this whole war was a bad idea, and that they should be sensible and overthrow Hitler.  Some of his more aggressive military commanders advocated more concrete action, like bombing German munition factories, but Chamberlain nixed the idea on the grounds that German munition factories were private property and that bombing them would therefore be inappropriate.

    Assuming for the sake of argument, however, that the British and the French had sent some sort of token expeditionary force (it’s hard to imagine them sending a substantial force, logistically or politically) to Finland to participate in the Winter War against the Soviets, we come up against the question of how Stalin would have responded.  I can’t imagine Stalin contacting Hitler – his ideological foe – and basically saying to him, “The French and the British have sent troops to help the Finns and my army can’t handle them.  Can you please help us deal with them?”  I think a more likely reaction by Stalin to an Anglo-French expeditionary force would have been the same one that a senior German officer (I think it was Hindenburg) had during WWI when he was asked what he would do if the British (as they contemplated doing, and as the tried on a small scale at Zeebrugge) if the British landed troops by sea on the coast of Belgium or Germany: he answered that he’d send the police to arrest them.


  • The name of the thread is “The easiest thing Germany could have done to win the war”, and the answer is, let UK and France declare war on Russia. Not a far fetched idea, the capitalist UK did in fact have troops in Archangelsk in 1920, fighting the Reds, but was kicked out. The trick would be, what kind of bait would Germany need to pull off ? The Russian attack on Finland in 1939 was out of German control. I cant see any action that Germany could do, to make UK attack Russia. Maybe leak fake information to Churchill that Stalin is about to attack all oil rich UK colonies in the Middle East, and India too. That would be an easy and cheap thing to do, and if Churchill took the bait and declared war on Russia, it could have won the war for Germany


  • UK and France in Finland would be a threat for USSR because by the time when they were suppose to do it, USSR already knew that taking Finland was a problem and the Red Army being weakened by lack of officers and tactics. Red Navy had it easy over Finland and I believe the Royal Navy would be an eye opener for Stalin. Hitler himself didn’t want war with UK however he also didn’t want them to gain any strategic advantage either. One of his reason for invading Norway was because of this, stops the flow of ore to UK. We could also experiment with the crazier idea that maybe Germany could of joined UK and France against USSR however I am pretty sure UK or France wouldn’t allow Germany be friends with them due to the large violations Hitler did with his military.


  • @Narvik:

    The name of the thread is “The easiest thing Germany could have done to win the war”

    In my opinion, the easiest thing that Germany could have done to win the war – and I’ll explain in a moment what I mean by “win” – is to have followed its historical script up to mid-June 1941, then cancelled Barbarossa.  This would have left most of continental Europe and much of Asia were under the control of the Tripartite Pact nations (Germany, Italy and Japan) and/or of countries which were allied to them or which had non-aggression pacts with them (i.e. the Soviet Union, which had non-aggresion pacts with both Germany and Japan.)  Not a bad outcome at all for Germany, and one that Hitler should objectively have been satisfied with (though objectivity wasn’t his strong suit).  That’s the outcome which David Fromkin called “The Triumph of the Dictators” in the chapter he contributed to the book “What If? : The World’s Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been”, as I mentioned previously in this thread…

    https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40095.0

    …which covers much of the same ground as the present thread.

    As a more proactive and aggressive supplement to this non-Barbarossa strategy, Germany could also have tried to put Britain even more on the ropes by invading the Middle East, seizing its oil, and possibly driving all the way into India to hook up with Japan.  That scenario is described in John Keegan’s chapter in the same book I mentioned above; as I recall, it’s titled “How Hitler Could Have Won The War.”


  • Yeah man, I think it was Keegan that suggested Hitler would be better off if he ditched Barbarossa and went for the Middle East oil. Keizer Wilhelm II had already made the Berlin Bagdhad Express through Turkey and to the oil fields of Mosul, starting in 1904, but not finished before 1940. Germany would have been independent of both American and Russian oil. Unfortunately our A&A map does not model this vital resource in any sane way. You just got 2 more IPCs and all the neutrals of the world turn against you, not enough to justify what would have been the winning strategy in the real war. Too bad, man. HUH. But in the real world, Germany would be self supplied with oil, and better yet, get a staging area close to the Russian oil fields in Baku. Nothing Russia could do to stop the 6 crack German mountain divisions from climbing over the Caucasus mountains and seize the oil fields. But would that really be the easiest thing they could do, or do anybody at this forum imagine any even more easy thing to do ?


  • @Narvik:

    Yeah man, I think it was Keegan that suggested Hitler would be better off if he ditched Barbarossa and went for the Middle East oil. Keizer Wilhelm II had already made the Berlin Bagdhad Express through Turkey and to the oil fields of Mosul, starting in 1904, but not finished before 1940. Germany would have been independent of both American and Russian oil. Unfortunately our A&A map does not model this vital resource in any sane way. You just got 2 more IPCs and all the neutrals of the world turn against you, not enough to justify what would have been the winning strategy in the real war.

    Yes, good point.  Without oil, mechanized land warfare, modern sea warfare, and air warfare involving heavier-than-air flying machines all become impossible.  As you’ve said, the sources of oil on land (such as the Middle East) are not properly modeled in A&A, which affects land strategy.  Likewise, the game doesn’t model adequately the importance of the Allied oceanic convoy routes for oil (and other goods, but notably oil) in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, nor of the Japanese convoy routes for oil from the Dutch East Indies to Japan, which affects naval strategy.


  • Hitler may of been better off just sending a full military force into Africa at that point instead of invading USSR. Hitler could of also go all the way in against Malta since that was a huge pain the ass for Italy. A full German and Italy force in North Africa could of changed the outcome where the Axis would of taken Egypt and that would lead to a full invasion of the middle east. Hook up with friendly Iraq and Persia and then go for USSR in the south. I don’t know if invading India from the West could be a good idea but certainly better if they did it the same time Japan came from the east.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    Short answer;

    “Not try to conquer the world at one go”

    Napoleon’s greatest asset wasn’t his leadership ability, it was that his enemies were enemies of one another.

    It took Napoleon’s success and ambition to unite them at all, and as his ambitions grew, so did the opposing, diverse and squabbling alliance until they had got together no less than SEVEN times in just TWENTY SEVEN years.  They really only wanted to contain Napoleon, so he would continue to be a threat that they could play off against one another, but it was only after they realized the danger of allowing him to rebuild and target them one by one that they decided to depose him entirely, which they had to do two, virtually 3 times.


  • Except German end game wasn’t conquer the whole world. This is a huge misconceptions about WWII. Each Axis nation had one national objective;

    Germany was to become the undisputed champion of Europe. Which and whom were allies or enemies didn’t matter.
    Italy was to regain “lost” territory from the Roman Empire but get as much as Hitler would allow. Example; I don’t think Hitler would let Italy capture Spain.
    Japan was to take over control of all Asian nations and unite them under a Japanese banner.


  • @Caesar:

    Hitler may of been better off just sending a full military force into Africa at that point instead of invading USSR.

    Sorry to ruin your day, mate, but that was impossible without a large part of magic and wonders. Germany had a very small merchant fleet and navy. Over a 2 month span they were able to ship 100 000 men with supply from Germany to Norway, and that is a short distance, one day each way. In addition, their air transport fleet was able to get 30 000 men over during that 2 month span. At that time Germany did not poses any port or harbor adjacent to the Mediterranean Sea, so they were shipped by the Italian fleet, and what they shipped was the limit of that capacity. If Germany had captured the old Austrian port of Trieste, and established a shipyard there, the distance from Trieste to Cairo is almost 4 times longer than the distance between Kiel and Oslo, so they would need to build 4 times more trannies that they actually had in the Baltic Sea, just to carry 100 000 men with supply over a 2 month span. At that point, I think the UK shipbuilding capacity was 5 times larger than what Germany had at the Baltic, so even if I too love your idea, I figure it was not very plausible. Sorry.


  • Seeing as Italy still had a fighting force in the Med at 41. Your response is moot.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    most of us do not consider the Italians to have been any kind of viable modern “fighting force” in any theatre or type of arms, at any time from 1917-1944.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

44

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts