How could Germany have won the war?

[Omega1759]

We start to see leaders emerging, but all the options were picked at least once so that’s good!

Not declaring war against the US seems to be the most popular option. I guess I agree with this to extent that I believe the Japanese should have avoided getting the US involved by attacking the Dutch East Indies as they seized French Indochina.  If the UK (who would be having a harder time getting supplies home because of a better German sub / air campaign) would be foolish enough to declare war, then the Japanese could proceed and take over with much less risk of seeing the US involved immediately (why would the US help the UK asset its own Empire?).

In late 1941, a stalemate could be reached in absence of seeing the Soviets or the USA involved.

UK is starving off, bankrupt and isolated and would have no interest in carrying on a fight. The Germans would have the UK acknowledge Italian and German North African conquests, the German claims on Western Europe (why wouldn’t Germany absorb Vichy France), Poland, Norway and the Benelux.

Japan with oil supplies from the DEI, could continue the colonial expansion in China and consolidate its empire.

Following the war, there would be 4 major world Powers:

Soviet Union (most powerful and numerous land forces)
USA (most powerful economy)
German Empire (best technology / military tactics)
Japanese Empire (dependent on other’s technology, but high potential)

[CWO Marc]

Instead of attacking the USSR in 1941, Germany should have invaded Turkey and, from there, struck out in two directions.  The eastward thrust would have had as its objective the capture of Iran, Iraq and possibly Saudi Arabia, in order to gain control of their oil supply for Germany and (at the same time) to deny that oil supply to Britain.  The westward thrust would have had as its objective the capture of the Suez Canal and of Egypt, trapping the British Army between this new thrust and Rommel’s existing forces in western North Africa.  The British presence in the Mediterranean would have been compromised, thus complicating the logistical support of the British armies in North Africa and facilitating that of the Axis armies, who might eventually have knocked the British completely out of North Africa.  Britain’s shortest route (via Suez) to India and the Far East would have been cut off, with damaging effects to both Britain’s maritime trade (bringing Britain closer to economic strangulation) and to its military support of its forces in the Far East (thus making the Japanese invasion of Malaya and Burma easier in December 1941).  With Germany occupying the Middle East and Japan having an easier time in Burma, it’s even possible the two Axis nations might have taken a shot at a joint invasion of India from opposite directions and effected a link-up there, knocking Britain’s “jewel of the Crown” out of the war and providing a direct overland trade connection between German-occupied and Japanese-occupied territory.

[Omega1759]

The Turkey option is interesting. With UK on the ropes, it’s not impossible that Turkey would have granted passage in exchange for retaining it’s sovereignty (not getting invaded).

From there, the Germans could take over most of the British and French empires.

The land route with Japan is an interesting concept which would have made Japan access to German technology much easier (as opposed to using submarines!)

[aequitas-et-veritas]

An Invasion of Turkey wasn´t neccessary.
It would have been a waste of time and ignorant since it was, that Turkey was a good provider for certain metalls (Chrome ,Nickel etc.,…) and other supplys.
Turkey was officially Neutral and an Invasion would open another Frontline wich drains men and material.

Invading Turkey as N.-Germany in any scenario and given time would cause more Problems then Help.
N.-Germany could have conquered Turkey in a few weeks, rather say months, but you also would have woke up the Arabien league (especially when you are about to cross the easten part of Turkey).

Are you Gentlemens and Generals are willing to do so in your Scenario??

• Good luck, “Merhabba”

[Razor]

@aequitas:

you also would have woke up the Arabien league (especially when you are about to cross the easten part of Turkey).

Marhaba, kifallach, mabsout eh? You too speak arabian, aequitas ? Jalla jalla, my special friend price for you.

Who do you, in your humble opinion, think the Arabien league will most likely support, Hitler with his anti-jews policy and close cooperation with islamic leader Amir Al-Husseini, or the Ottoman infidels who depressed and subjectioned the arabs for one century and at this time (1940) try to make a secular state away from islam ?

[MrMalachiCrunch]

ShadowHAwk, the US also sold was materials to Germany but it is true Roosevelt felt Hitler had to be stopped and that most of the trade and support was with Britain.  Had Germany not gone after minorities coupled with a competent P.R. campaign then I am certain Germany could have kept the US from declaring war.  Germany would have to be able to choke out England fairly quickly and not a 10 year starvation blockade.  By the end of 1941 the US still could not muster the political support required to declare war.  Hitler was a fool to declare war on the US first.  Had he not done that one easily avoidable act it might have been another year even with Pearl Harbour before the US comes to the aid of England.  Had he actively worked to keep the US out of the war in Europe/Africa it could easily have been 2-3 more years if ever.

The old saying “If things were different they wouldn’t be the same” comes to mind if you change too much about Hitler and Nazism.  With that in mind a questionable option as unsavory as it is….could be “Avoid genocidal tendencies until victory is won.”

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@Razor:

@aequitas:

you also would have woke up the Arabien league (especially when you are about to cross the easten part of Turkey).

Marhaba, kifallach, mabsout eh? You too speak arabian, aequitas ? Jalla jalla, my special friend price for you.

Who do you, in your humble opinion, think the Arabien league will most likely support, Hitler with his anti-jews policy and close cooperation with islamic leader Amir Al-Husseini, or the Ottoman infidels who depressed and subjectioned the arabs for one century and at this time (1940) try to make a secular state away from islam ?

naw ,only a few sentences turkish to get good conversations with some Turkish friends over here.
The question of Turkey in WW II. and it´s role was allready discussed many times of course but mostly ended up, with the high possibility that the Arabien League would not welcomed an Invasion of Turkey.
And in fact,Turkey (as well as the Arabien League) welcomed the anti - jew policy of Hitler but it would have been soon clear IF Hitler is invading Turkey, then the Arabien League would have figured that his hate/interrest is against all different thinkers and believers.
Hitler knew what he was doing by keeping Turkey at bay in that state they where (officially Neutral) and even allowing SS - Handschar fighting along with his soldiers. SS-Handschar was the only Muslime Unit (Croats) who fought for Hitler against the Soviets.
It is to understand that it was more like an unwritten pact between N.-Germany and Turkey and The Arabien League tolertaing the things happen in N.-Germany and dealing metal, interrests and money etc. …
But to be honest and to leave it a little bit open, it is hard to say what exactly would have happend if Turkey would have been conquered as a whole, including the eastern part. -> according to the Ottoman question you have raised.

It was a very sharp and Interresting question of you Razor :-)  iyi Günler (my Turkish writting is bad lol :wink:)

[Razor]

Nice answer. And it just might be a good reason nobody dared attack Turkey during the real war

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@Razor:

Nice answer. And it just might be a good reason nobody dared attack Turkey during the real war

8-) :-D

[MrMalachiCrunch]

I did not mean to imply the US was selling goods to Germany after the declaration of war, my mistake, I should have been more specific.  I would also like to add that it was not the US government but US corporations which have a mind and motive of their own.

http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_nastybiz.html

So anyways,

The Lend-Lease act was enacted 9 months before Pearl Harbor but well after the outbreak of WW II.

I didn’t know this until just know, from wiki…

Formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, the Act effectively ended the United States’ pretense of neutrality.

Germany may have easily been able to use PR to delay or even prevent this act from being passed.  Britain was running out of gold and prior to this act the US could not sell war materials on credit.

If this act could have been delayed until 1942 and Germany been better prepared with subs in the Atlantic then I think Germany would have a good foundation for choking out England.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@ShadowHAwk:

…Just that history is always written by the victor not the loser of a war.

And this is exactly the problem and makes it hard to figure out the truth…

[Zooey72]

There are a lot of things that could have helped Germany in the war, but very few I think would have changed it.  I think seizing Gibralter would have caused a domino effect that would have taken England out of the war.  Gibralter cuts off Africa, Rommel take the suez cannal and pushes into the Middle East.  India falls to Japan because it is outflanked by Germany to the west.  England either sues for peace or is irrelevant militarily.  Full German force hits Russia,  Russia falls (and don’t forget they would have to contend with Rommel’s Africa corps flanking the caucus oil fields).

But short of that, the quick answer would be mass produced sturmgewher from the start of the war.  If that was standard issue to every German soldier (at least as of June 1941) no one could have stopped the Wermarcht.  People get caught up with German wonder weapons like King tigers, Jets, and Rockets, but over look the impact of having the first assault rifle.  This is supported by the results the Germans got from the MG42.  It was mass produced and along with the 88s they contributed to hugely to the success the Germans had.  Again, not as sexy as the first guided missle or the Kommet, but it got the job done.

The other thing would have been for Hitler to knock off his racist crap in reguards to the Ukranians.  He would of had millions more soldiers fighting for him instead of against him.

[Omega1759]

@Zooey72:

There are a lot of things that could have helped Germany in the war, but very few I think would have changed it.  I think seizing Gibralter would have caused a domino effect that would have taken England out of the war.  Gibralter cuts off Africa, Rommel take the suez cannal and pushes into the Middle East.  India falls to Japan because it is outflanked by Germany to the west.  England either sues for peace or is irrelevant militarily.  Full German force hits Russia,  Russia falls (and don’t forget they would have to contend with Rommel’s Africa corps flanking the caucus oil fields).

But short of that, the quick answer would be mass produced sturmgewher from the start of the war.  If that was standard issue to every German soldier (at least as of June 1941) no one could have stopped the Wermarcht.   People get caught up with German wonder weapons like King tigers, Jets, and Rockets, but over look the impact of having the first assault rifle.  This is supported by the results the Germans got from the MG42.  It was mass produced and along with the 88s they contributed to hugely to the success the Germans had.  Again, not as sexy as the first guided missle or the Kommet, but it got the job done.

The other thing would have been for Hitler to knock off his racist crap in reguards to the Ukranians.  He would of had millions more soldiers fighting for him instead of against him.

Great points!

[Gargantua]

I think NOT starting the war would have been the best way to win.

[CWO Marc]

@Gargantua:

I think NOT starting the war would have been the best way to win.

“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”
– WarGames (1983 movie)

[Gargantua]

@CWO:

@Gargantua:

I think NOT starting the war would have been the best way to win.

“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”
– WarGames (1983 movie)

Exactly the movie I was thinking of!

[ABWorsham4]

I agree that infantry weapons have a larger impact on wars, since infantry win wars.

I hear on this site and others about Germany’s great weapon systems and their possible impact had Germany started the war with these weapons. It’s forgotten that many of these weapons were produced in reaction to situations the War produced. We also forget that the militaries at times are ruled by traditionist.

While the jet aircraft should have been produced by Germany, it’s hard to see the German Infantry going to war with anything but the Mauser 98 and MG 34 and the Panzer Divisions armed with anything more advanced than the Panzer III and IV, but in far greater numbers.

U-Boats and Capital Ships numbers would have no doubt been greater and been better prepared for a long war.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

Very good ABWorsham.

[Gargantua]

Maybe if Germanies population was double, or triple… this would have been possible.

[Last Jack]

Interesting that every option has been chosen at least once.  Germany needed a lot of help to win.

@Gargantua:

Maybe if Germanies population was double, or triple… this would have been possible.

This might of been the most useful for Germany.  Amazing that a country of 80 million people even threatened to win.