Could Germany have won WW2?

nightrider1470

nightrider1470

nightrider1470

Soldato
Joined
25 May 2011
Posts
3,299
Watching a lot of documentaries

Did Germany taking on Russia, cost them the second world war?... Why did he suddenly take on Russia ? with so many other fronts he was fighting on....

Did Hitler purposely let the soilders at Dunkirk escape?

Any insight is appreciated
 
Last edited:
From what I've seen on various documentaries, the two things that stand out in my mind are that a), as you mention, taking on Russia and generally biting off more than they could chew (stretching themselves too thin), and b), Hitler was no military strategist.
 
Invading Russia certainly didn't help Germany but what other option did they have, It would always be a threat they would one day have to face - perhaps better to attack an ill prepared country than one that's mobilised for war.

The escape from Dunkirk was more the Luftwafe's arrogance that they could do the job from the air than anything else, it didn't do Hitler any favors. We still lost huge amounts of equipment though.

From what I understand the single biggest weakness of Germany was manpower, they just didn't have the people and didn't help themselves by slaughtering their own citizens who might have made the difference.
 
I_M_Weasel said:
The escape from Dunkirk was more the Luftwafe's arrogance that they could do the job from the air than anything else, it didn't do Hitler any favors. We still lost huge amounts of equipment though.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of theories on that and there are reasons in relation to the utilisation of tank divisions as well but I've started to wonder if Britain's earlier appeasement and rather lacklustre efforts in general leading upto the retreat meant that Hitler thought we would still come around to his perspective and latterly join him. Appeasement generally doesn't lead to good places despite people's intentions - though in this case it might have unintentionally bought us time - that we shouldn't have needed to buy in the first place.
 
Rroff said:
There are a lot of theories on that and there are reasons in relation to the utilisation of tank divisions as well but I've started to wonder if Britain's earlier appeasement and rather lacklustre efforts in general leading upto the retreat meant that Hitler thought we would still come around to his perspective and latterly join him. Appeasement generally doesn't lead to good places despite people's intentions - though in this case it might have unintentionally bought us time - that we shouldn't have needed to buy in the first place.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but wouldn't holding a few 100,000 prisoners be a useful bargaining chip at any peace negotiations versus the moral boost that Dunkirk became.

I don't think Churchill truly believed we were ever in danger of invasion ourselves, Germany lacked the required sea lift and the RN would have annihilated any landing. Even if we had lost the (air) Battle of Britain we would have just withdrawn our aircraft North until we really needed them to use against an invasion. However Britain lacked any real way of attacking Germany, our extensive aerial bombing was more about doing something rather than nothing and hoping our Allies would eventually help.
 
We very much need to decide what we're calling the end of the war. Could they have fought the allies to a standstill? Yes. Could they have knocked out Russia's ability to threaten them? Maaaybe. Could they have held on to France against native resistance and the long term economic stress of military occupation and pacification? A different question. Which did intend to ask?

I can make a convincing argument that there was no WWII. Only WWI part two. If a similar period of peace is allowed to mark the end of WWII then I think yes, they might have. But renewed war would be likely.

I also assume the question is of the "if they hadn't attacked then" sort of alternate history rather than the "if they'd managed to develop jets or the atomic bomb" sort, even though both of those were possibilities.
 
I_M_Weasel said:
Possibly, but wouldn't holding a few 100,000 prisoners be a useful bargaining chip at any peace negotiations versus the moral boost that Dunkirk became.

I don't think Churchill truly believed we were ever in danger of invasion ourselves, Germany lacked the required sea lift and the RN would have annihilated any landing. Even if we had lost the (air) Battle of Britain we would have just withdrawn our aircraft North until we really needed them to use against an invasion. However Britain lacked any real way of attacking Germany, our extensive aerial bombing was more about doing something rather than nothing and hoping our Allies would eventually help.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was wanting a peace negotiation - though it is hard to understand his mentality really. Its possible he thought events of the day (the later effect of Dunkirk only became apparent after) would demonstrate the kind of superiority, etc. his vision of the third Reich was all about and convince Britain to come around to his side.
 
It seems plausible to me had things played out differently, but also would depend on what the definition of 'winning' a 'world war' is. I can imagine a situation perhaps where Russia was not attacked where armistice was reached in Europe with Germany holding more territory. More interesting to me would be what would happen next - would the US have contemplated using the atomic bomb in Europe had Germany not largely been defeated by then? If a ceasefire was reached how long would it have lasted before war broke out again? Would Russia have mobilised forces and sought to expand themselves into the fringes of the new third reich?
 
Invading Russia was the whole point of the war. It wasn't a war against us, and then he decided to invade Russia and messed it all up.
Russia was always the objective. We were just in the way(because of Poland).
 
HangTime said:
It seems plausible to me had things played out differently, but also would depend on what the definition of 'winning' a 'world war' is. I can imagine a situation perhaps where Russia was not attacked where armistice was reached in Europe with Germany holding more territory. More interesting to me would be what would happen next - would the US have contemplated using the atomic bomb in Europe had Germany not largely been defeated by then? If a ceasefire was reached how long would it have lasted before war broke out again? Would Russia have mobilised forces and sought to expand themselves into the fringes of the new third reich?
Click to expand...

In that line of thinking I think the Germans would have come to the atom bomb before the US and possibly even had rudimentary ICBM type capabilities while the US would only have been capable of mavity bombs.

I'm not even sure the US would have developed the nuclear bomb in that era without the catalysts of the way things unfolded - much of the development started in 1942 with a lot of British involvement due to the circumstances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vemork
 
Hitler's relentless goal of taking Stalingrad and Russia in general really stretched Germany in terms of man power and equipment. Once the Allies invaded Italy and then opened up the second front on D-Day it was pretty much game over. Loads of mistakes and factors took place over the war. Letting so many men be saved at Dunkirk and not going straight for Great Britain after was a mistake i always thought. The Americans would have had no base of operations for D-Day. This could have all been done without invading Russia first. To be honest Germany completly waltzed through huge amounts of Russia without the russians even inflicting that much damage. Stalin had abit of a breakdown from what i read and didnt even give out any orders to launch counter offences. Winter soon came around though and the vast size of Russia really stretched them. With the disaster of Stalingrad as soon as they lost that awful piece of history they were on the back foot and it was down hill continuously from there.
 
Street said:
It's a fantastic area for ice climbing in Rjukan. Fair play to the guys that climbed the ravine to the factory in the 40s with the gear they had back then!
Click to expand...

Wasn't it in the dark, poor weather and with Germans on patrol? I'm a bit fuzzy on the details now but as a kid I had a book which went into a lot of details on it including highly detailed drawings of the paths they took.

Zethor said:
No chance, the only side that could win was the side that included the US.
Click to expand...

Ultimately the US's manufacturing, etc. was largely out of range of any serious attack while Germany was largely much more exposed to supply and manufacturing interdiction despite some production in Switzerland.
 
No, failure to destroy the BEF and then a misguided attack on their ally (Russia) that went beyond their lines of supply meant it would end in a loss.

Realistically if they hadn't had a madman in charge they would have been at the negotiating table in 41.
 
I've seen and read much about this subject and it seems the majority suggest it was impossible for Germany to win, with or without attacking Russia, unless they had developed nukes before the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom