How could Germany have won the war?

[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.

[Razor]

@Gargantua:

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

False, they didnt lack men, they lack  resources, like oil, iron, food etc

[Gargantua]

Well with 3x as many people working in ADVANCE of the war, producing, manufacturing, gathering, and trading for resources.  I boast that perhaps 3x as many resources would have been available.

[Razor]

Its not the number of men that matters, its their IQ.

5000 brits ruled 400 000 Indians.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

The IQ of the brits was no different from the IQ of the Indians.  IQ and technology are different things.

[Zooey72]

I think it is more of a societal thing.  One of the reasons I am proud to be an American is that we TOOK our freedom from England when England was (close to) at its strongest.  You look around the world and you see these third world countries bitching and moaning about “its not our fault, we were a colony”!  Boo frigg’n hoo.  So were we, and instead of being given our freedom (which India was, if you believe Ghandi did it I have a bridge to sell you), we took it.  Taking freedom is much different than having it given to you.  Look around the world at the old colonies, most of them are run now dictators and are poor.  Very few took their freedom, most got it because we pressured England to drop its colonies after the war (which they had to do, or no Marshall plan $).

We have a Constitution that allows us to have weapons.  That was not put in there so people could hunt or defend themselves against muggers.  It was put in there so that the government does not have a monopoly on force.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

I find it interesting that my post got a -1 -2.  So, this person(s) believes that Indians are inferior to Brits?  Well that would be racist.  Or does that person feel IQ and technology are the same thing?  Well that would be stupid.  Stupid or racist, what a choice….

Zooey72, you believe Europe gave up it’s colonies as a condition of the Marshall plan?  In theory that may have been a requirement but in practice colonies of France and England in Africa went on for decades.  Some of the African names may not be that significant, but perhaps if we move to southeast asia… Vietnam ought to ring a bell to Americans.  That was a colony of France.  Not only did the US offer France aid under the Marshall plan but took over the fight basically.

http://www.historytoday.com/sami-abouzahr/tangled-web-america-france-and-indochina-1947-50

In particular, the Marshall Plan, which provided Western European countries with aid and a framework for European co-operation during the years 1947-50, played a vital role in the development of US policy towards Indochina. Washington needed French co-operation in the reconstruction of Western Europe along US policy lines, and this requirement made it impossible for the US to condemn or attempt to alter French policy in Indochina. By 1949 the US had become committed to keeping Communism out of Southeast Asia within its own Cold War strategy. This pushed the US to pour money and aid into the hopeless French attempt to keep its imperial possession. By the time the French abandoned the effort after the catastrophic defeat at Dien Bien Phu (1954), the US was financing 80 per cent of the French war effort, and had committed itself financially, politically and emotionally to preventing a Communist victory there.

You also feel Ghandi played little part in the independence of India, in your opinion then what was the big moving force there?

With your low opinion of how other countries got their freedom you must be proud of how Vietnam got theirs.

Some of the countries on this list were colonies of Europe until the 70s.

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

[Kreuzfeld]

@Zooey72:

I think it is more of a societal thing.  One of the reasons I am proud to be an American is that we TOOK our freedom from England when England was (close to) at its strongest.  You look around the world and you see these third world countries bitching and moaning about “its not our fault, we were a colony”!  Boo frigg’n hoo.  So were we, and instead of being given our freedom (which India was, if you believe Ghandi did it I have a bridge to sell you), we took it.  Taking freedom is much different than having it given to you.  Look around the world at the old colonies, most of them are run now dictators and are poor.  Very few took their freedom, most got it because we pressured England to drop its colonies after the war (which they had to do, or no Marshall plan $).

We have a Constitution that allows us to have weapons.  That was not put in there so people could hunt or defend themselves against muggers.  It was put in there so that the government does not have a monopoly on force.

You make it sound like the americans took it without help, from a british empire who had nothing else to do. The fact is that the american revolution would probably not have succeded if this was the case. The british war in india got most of the british resouces, and the french (the worlds strongest military power on land at the time), combined with the spansih and the dutch helped a great deal. In fact, there are very few wars of freedom (after 1500) that have won without help from an outside power helping, and usually they need to declare war to do enough. The nations you are belitteling is exactly the nations that would never get aid for their revolutionary and rebellious wars, and exactly the nations that got their freedom with the least help from an outside power. The indians did it by making sure that it would be too costly for the british to stay there.

When it comes to the second amendment, don’t be naive, the government does have monopoly on force, there is no way a rebellion would work, taliban militias is better armed than the american civilian population.

The one way to ensure (IMO) that the government cannot use their army against the civilan population is to have a conscripted army, if every person have served, then every member of the army thinks of himself as a member of the population and massive nonviolent protests will turn the army against the government. It is less violent, and has a greater chance of success. The moment the army is a professional army, thinking of themselves as outside the population, working for a salery, then you are in trouble as a democracy.

EDIT: forgive my harsh tone, it is not meant that way

[Octospire]

@Kreuzfeld:

@Zooey72:

I think it is more of a societal thing.  One of the reasons I am proud to be an American is that we TOOK our freedom from England when England was (close to) at its strongest.  You look around the world and you see these third world countries bitching and moaning about “its not our fault, we were a colony”!  Boo frigg’n hoo.  So were we, and instead of being given our freedom (which India was, if you believe Ghandi did it I have a bridge to sell you), we took it.  Taking freedom is much different than having it given to you.  Look around the world at the old colonies, most of them are run now dictators and are poor.  Very few took their freedom, most got it because we pressured England to drop its colonies after the war (which they had to do, or no Marshall plan $).

We have a Constitution that allows us to have weapons.  That was not put in there so people could hunt or defend themselves against muggers.  It was put in there so that the government does not have a monopoly on force.

You make it sound like the americans took it without help, from a british empire who had nothing else to do. The fact is that the american revolution would probably not have succeded if this was the case. The british war in india got most of the british resouces, and the french (the worlds strongest military power on land at the time), combined with the spansih and the dutch helped a great deal. In fact, there are very few wars of freedom (after 1500) that have won without help from an outside power helping, and usually they need to declare war to do enough. The nations you are belitteling is exactly the nations that would never get aid for their revolutionary and rebellious wars, and exactly the nations that got their freedom with the least help from an outside power. The indians did it by making sure that it would be too costly for the british to stay there.

When it comes to the second amendment, don’t be naive, the government does have monopoly on force, there is no way a rebellion would work, taliban militias is better armed than the american civilian population.

The one way to ensure (IMO) that the government cannot use their army against the civilan population is to have a conscripted army, if every person have served, then every member of the army thinks of himself as a member of the population and massive nonviolent protests will turn the army against the government. It is less violent, and has a greater chance of success. The moment the army is a professional army, thinking of themselves as outside the population, working for a salery, then you are in trouble as a democracy.

EDIT: forgive my harsh tone, it is not meant that way

Indeed the United States merely won a guerilla insurgency in the same manner as the Vietcong and the NVA defeated South Vietnam and the U.S.
Without the help of the French who were fighting the British across the globe at the same time the American revolution would of died in its infancy. The French contributed to the ultimate American triumph by diverting resources that could of been used against the revolutionaries and also by providing arms to the revolutionaries.

The American revolutionaries won a war of secession not a war of two powers, people tend to forget that in any time in the next 40 years the British empire could of thrown its full force against the United States and utterly crushed the fledgling nation had it had the will to do so.

The war was won for the U.S by the British public, as they could abide a long war in which they were fighting people they considered their countrymen. Had the British had their usual iron will as seen in more or less every conflict since the American revolutionary war things would of likely turned out differently.

While today the British backing away from the U.S and not simply just giving the colonists what they wanted seems foolish back then the United States wasn’t the prize it is today.

At the cessesation of hostilities Jamaica’s gross domestic product was 4 times that of the entire United States mainly due to its vast sugar plantations.

[toblerone77]

Gerry should’ve waited about ten years to start the party and do his best to stay clear of the US involvement. Hilter was about ideology. He tried to win the war using ideology not sound tactics.

[Gargantua]

Earlier in the war, one could have argued that Ideology might have pulled it off for Hitler.

[Witt]

Thanks for that Garg: Hitler and pulled off in the same sentence.
Not sure if I will be able to eat later, or sleep!

I need a distraction: I will have to get out an A&A game and immerse myself in its set up. Now!

[BJCard]

Germany could have won if (a lot of IFs):

1. Not spread hatred about other cultures and used them to help the war effort (Jews, Gypsies, Poles, etc).
2. Not spend resources on ‘The Final Solution.’  Complete waste.
3. Planned further ahead for jet aircraft with longer range and mass produce them.
4. Planned further ahead on submarines and start the war in 1939 with more than ~57 they did have.
5. Either NOT do Barbarossa at all or:
   -Attack in May instead of July
   -Not commit atrocities against oppressed peoples in Russia.  i.e. come into the Ukraine as liberators instead of murderers/conquerors.  You may even get defections of ethnic Ukrainians (and other peoples) to help the cause.  Promise these people independence in the future.
6. Helped Italy earlier than they did and provide training/equipment.  Perhaps even take command of their armed forces.
7. Shift to ‘total war’ in 1939 vice 1943/1944.  Realize that this will be a long war and not something to be won quickly.
8. Cooperate with Japan earlier.  Could have helped them develop proper submarine tactics, which would have forced the US to have more ASW capabilities in the Pacific.  Perhaps even convince them to not attack the US and attack Russia instead (unlikely).  
9. Don’t declare war on the US until absolutely necessary.
10. Provide support to the pro-axis Iraqi government.
11. Provide Eastern Front army with better winter gear.  Maybe have the Finns help with this.

With some luck, Germany could have conquered Russia and starved Britain with these tactics- maybe even won in North Africa and taken the Mid East.

And of course the obligatory:
   Develop the atom bomb before the war (or at least before Barbarossa?).

[Witt]

Nice BJCard.

I am sure the only reason Barbarossa was late June is  that Yugoslavia and Greece’s invasion in Spring threw out the timetable.
I strongly agree that Total War was called too late, earlier mass production of military essentials could only have helped.

[BJCard]

@wittmann:

Nice BJCard.

I am sure the only reason Barbarossa was late June is  that Yugoslavia and Greece’s invasion in Spring threw out the timetable.
I strongly agree that Total War was called too late, earlier mass production of military essentials could only have helped.

Yes, you are probably right about Barbarossa.  Perhaps if Italy had better equipment and training they could have taken care of Yugoslavia and Greece so Germany could have focused on the main event.

[Razor]

@BJCard:

Germany could have won if (a lot of IFs):

1. Not spread hatred about other cultures and used them to help the war effort (Jews, Gypsies, Poles, etc).

Silly suggestion. If you dont spread hatred, then you dont start wars neither. War is all about killing people you hate. And exactely how could the gypsies have supported any kind of war effort ? Gypsies are by nature independed beggars, sitting on corners with their cups. They dont work in factories, neither do they enlist in any kind of military branch.

[Razor]

@BJCard:

Germany could have won if (a lot of IFs):

5. Either NOT do Barbarossa at all or:
   -Attack in May instead of July

What, not attack Russia, are you crazy ? Have you ever read a book about WWII ? Germans have always tryed to conquer and colonize Russia, they tryed it in 1812, they startet WW I in 1914 to try it again but unfortunately France and UK interfered it. Hitler wrote “Mein kampf” in 1920 where he stated that the goal was to conquer and colonize Russia and kill all russians, and that was his casus bellum, and that was the cause that all germans supported, thats the reason they voted on him in the 1933 election. Das drang nach Ostern. The urge to go East. Hitler had nothing against brits or frenchmen, nor did he have any territorial claims in west. Hitler invaded Poland, and then UK and France started WWII because they wanted to intercept Hitler. If Hitler had said “I want to conquer Britain so German settlers can colonize that foggy island” then no Germans would have supported him ever. Germans go to war to kill slaves, not britons. Thats the case in WWII, and in WWI, and 1812, and before that too, we can go back to the mediveal, the pattern is blatant.

[Witt]

BJCard: Italy messed up the invasion of Greece and this  dragged Germany into it. Do not think Italy was ever going to be prepared for WW2. Few Italians had the inclination for it either.
I wonder if Germany could have attacked Russia without safeguarding the Balkans first. (I  think not.)
Not sure if they had planned on attacking Yugoslavia first anyway.

Maybe someone can confirm if that was the case.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@wittmann:

BJCard: Italy messed up the invasion of Greece and this  dragged Germany into it. Do not think Italy was ever going to be prepared for WW2. Few Italians had the inclination for it either.
I wonder if Germany could have attacked Russia without safeguarding the Balkans first. (I  think not.)
Not sure if they had planned on attacking Yugoslavia first anyway.

Maybe someone can confirm if that was the case.

It was not planned but the Germans were forced to invade the Balkans.
Julius Cesar declared once, that the Balkans are like a Barrel full of Powder.
If it is possible ,you try not to engage in a conflict with the Balkans. (As it is still nowa these days)