Could Germany have won WW2?

[aslco]

Most of the literature I have read by British historians only just rates us as ground fighting unit marginally above them. With our strength by then being in commando tactics.




Again all the recent stuff I have read said the opposite, the Americans didn't get a toss about the breaking up of the Empire and who took it. Reluctance to get involved was due to them thinking all we wanted to do was hold on to our empire which they has no interest in helping.

Yeah i read a lot on US indifference, but there's too many red lines that the US set. Eventually due to their very nature, the Japanese/ Germans would have crossed one. The Americans were also doing a hell of a lot of supplying / passive help. they weren't heavily emotionally / politically invested initially, but even if we got to say late 1944 with no US involvement I think we'd have soon seen them make a move.

 

[RaohNS]

Hitler could have annihilated the standing armies of France and Britain at Dunkirk. Other than bogging them down they did not counter attack and destroy all X00,000 men. It was speculated that Hitler against the will of his generals and Field Marshals chose not to attack and destroy. This is why you see allied troops walking onto boats just off shore. It was probably more humiliation he allowed them to escape rather than an alleged comment of "I do not wish to fight them".

As for Russia I think files released by the Russians a few years ago substantiate that Hitler attacked Russia because Russia was planning to invade parts of Europe.

Without materiel from the US Britain would have been overrun certainly before 1942. Had the Russian campaign been better planned Moscow would have fallen. They were only 17miles or so away.

Operation Paperclip is another interesting one and also I have a strong belief that Hitler escaped any form of punishment.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Do they read history books in the alt-right bubble or do they just high five each other's unsubstantiated, clueless forum ramblings?

At the beginning of the 20th century, Socialism essentially revolved around "class struggle" and Hitler took certain mechanisms from Socialism, not the ideology itself:

The ‘National Socialists’ wanted to unite the two political camps of left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. […] By presenting itself as a ‘movement’, National Socialism, like the labour movement, advertised its opposition to conventional politics and its intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work. By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/319473.The_Coming_of_the_Third_Reich


Furthermore, while some economic policies were indeed inspired by socialism, the social policies were 100% traditionalist/conservative. Women were to be housewives and mothers who wear traditional German peasant dress, no make-up, trousers, dye in their hair or smoking in public. I suppose these are left wing policies too huh?


The economic left wing of the Nazi party was tolerated because they needed the votes while the Weimar Republic existed. As soon as Hitler took full power, they were eliminated:

By the early 1930s Strasser was head of the Nazi political organization and second only to Hitler in power and popularity. As leader of the party’s left wing, however, he opposed Hitler’s courting of big business as well as his anti-Semitism and instead favoured radical social reforms along socialist lines. He finally resigned his party offices in 1932. Hitler was able to avert large-scale losses in membership after Strasser’s defection, and, after Hitler’s accession to the chancellorship, Strasser lost almost all of his influence. He was murdered on Hitler’s orders during the Röhm purge of 1934.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gregor-Strasser

According to Speer, "...the Right, represented by the President, the Minister of Justice, and the generals, lined up behind Hitler...the strong left wing of the party, represented chiefly by the SA, was eliminated."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives


The falsities you are are peddling are a modern construct of the alt-right and they were created because, as we all know, "Reality has a well known liberal bias". Placing the Nazis on the Left political spectrum was lunacy then and it is lunacy now.

The first anniversary of the Nazi dictatorship is approaching. All the tendencies of the regime have had time to take on a clear and distinct character. The “socialist” revolution pictured by the petty-bourgeois masses as a necessary supplement to the national revolution is officially liquidated and condemned. The brotherhood of classes found its culmination in the fact that on a day especially appointed by the government the haves renounced the hors d’oeuvre and dessert in favor of the have-nots. The struggle against unemployment is reduced to the cutting of semi-starvation doles in two. The rest is the task of uniformed statistics. “Planned” autarky is simply a new stage of economic disintegration.

The more impotent the police regime of the Nazi is in the field of national economy, the more it is forced to transfer its efforts to the field of foreign policy. This corresponds fully to the inner dynamics of German capitalism, aggressive through and through. The sudden turn of the Nazi leaders to peaceful declarations could deceive only utter simpletons. What other method remains at Hitler’s disposal to transfer the responsibility for internal distresses to external enemies and to accumulate under the press of the dictatorship the explosive force of nationalism? This part of the program, outlined openly even prior to the Nazis” assumption of power, is now being fulfilled with iron logic before the eyes of the world. The date of the new European catastrophe will be determined by the time necessary for the arming of Germany. It is not a question of months, but neither is it a question of decades. It will be but a few years before Europe is again plunged into a war, unless Hitler is forestalled in time by the inner forces of Germany.

Leon Trotsky November 2, 1933

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm



Finally, if you decide to reply to this post, you might want to add some sources to the usual ramblings. Experts, historians etc. , I'm interested in the academic foundation of your ideas, assuming such a thing exists.

And from safetytrouser's educated and coherent counter-argument we're back to the standard ad hominems, appeals to authority and googling for "were the nazis left wing". Lets dispense with the and snide insinuations insults first. I've nothing to do with the alt-right, didn't receive my views as some delivered package from any group let alone one that post-dates my awareness of the facts that led me to those views. Ad hominins carry no weight and just repeating "Alt Right" at me is worthless.

As to my "peddling falsities", by all means go back through my posts pick out any reason I gave for why I consider Nazism predominantly Left Wing that you think was a lie. I'll provide you a citation. Go ahead. But it has to be something I actually wrote. Not your re-phrasing of it. Be specific and quote exactly what you think is a lie.

The suggestion of the Nazis becoming Right Wing after the Night of the Long Knives I answered comprehensively in response to safetytrouser's much politer raising of the argument. I provided a substantial list of Left Wing actions and policies by the Nazis after this event so clearly it wasn't an excising of Left Wing ideologies that you pretend it was. Also, as unlike safetytrousers you seem emotionally invested in the superiority of the Left, I'll observe that if the Brown Shirts were what made the Nazis Left Wing then that's not a great advertisement for being Left Wing.

As to the Google'd up list of quotes, I don't find them effective argument. It may be dumb-founding to those who are used to arguing by searching for someone who agrees with them and copy-pasting it into a thread, but I don't believe that because Trotsky thought something, it makes it true. That said, your quotes aren't really a coherent rebuttal to anything I wrote so it's academic. If you feel differently, I'm afraid you're going to have to actually READ your quotes and point out where they contradict my arguments and why they should take precedence.

Finally, for someone so eager to characterise another as politically slanting things you have an almost stereotypical misrepresentation of the Right. No, the attitude of a woman wearing traditional dress is not an attribute of Left or Right. It's traditionalist, sometimes Conservative, it doesn't make the Nazis Right Wing. Only in the Left's heavily biased view of the Right is misogyny a characteristic of the Right. Seriously - does it not strike you that saying misogynistic attitudes are a defining trait of Right Wing might be itself a biased view of the Right? You're confusing some Right Wing groups with defining the Right. Which would be about as fair as me suggesting that Nazism or the Soviets defined the Left. When you reach the point of saying "the Nazis were Right Wing because they [were misogynistic]" you're reaching badly.

 

[dannyjo22]

Without materiel from the US Britain would have been overrun certainly before 1942. Had the Russian campaign been better planned Moscow would have fallen. They were only 17miles or so away.

Operation Paperclip is another interesting one and also I have a strong belief that Hitler escaped any form of punishment.

I know Russia likes to make out it didn't happen but Lend Lease also did a lot to save Moscow falling. As for Operation Paperclip, am I reading it right you think Hitler didn't kill himself and leave orders to have his remains burnt? If so I don't understand the motivation for hushing that up or what they had to gain from doing it. I'm sure the Americans would much rather have put him on trial as the capturing heroes??

Nazi Hunters is a good book and describes an interesting time the British stole some of the Nazi war criminals from the Americans to stop them dissapearing to the states.

 

[Rroff]

Hitler could have annihilated the standing armies of France and Britain at Dunkirk. Other than bogging them down they did not counter attack and destroy all X00,000 men. It was speculated that Hitler against the will of his generals and Field Marshals chose not to attack and destroy. This is why you see allied troops walking onto boats just off shore. It was probably more humiliation he allowed them to escape rather than an alleged comment of "I do not wish to fight them".

As for Russia I think files released by the Russians a few years ago substantiate that Hitler attacked Russia because Russia was planning to invade parts of Europe.

Without materiel from the US Britain would have been overrun certainly before 1942. Had the Russian campaign been better planned Moscow would have fallen. They were only 17miles or so away.

Operation Paperclip is another interesting one and also I have a strong belief that Hitler escaped any form of punishment.

Unfortunately I can't remember details off the top of my head but there was some issue with the German tank divisions as well - there was conflicting views on how to use them or something and they'd been pushing it for days and stretched out and while there was the potential for overwhelming victory also the possibility of a bad defeat due to the poor strategic position they were in.

EDIT: Someone elses comments on it so not sure how accurate it is but:

The motorized divisions were in a sorry state after 3 weeks of continuous travel and fighting, with lots of worn out or broken down tanks and trucks. There were serious logistics problems too, and only so many local gas stations to fill up the tanks. The majority of the French army (even deprived of its best and most mobile elements) was still massed on the southern flank of a hugely overextended armored spearhead. The 300 km breakthrough was a huge gamble to begin with, and relied entirely on the assumption that the BEF and the French army would be unable to regroup and react quickly enough to the situation. The Arras and Stonne counterattacks had failed, but they might have been percieved as sufficiently threatening to convince some members of the high comand to be more cautious. Lastly, the idea that air power would be enough to prevent the evacuation proved totally wrong, but this theory had not been put to the test yet. Air power was highly overrated at the time, and the recent successes of the Luftwaffe probably did not help to dispell the myth. Judging from the battle of Britain that followed, even the Dunkirk failure wasn't enough for that.

 

[SPG]

No they lost.... or the last 60 years have been a dream.

So no they could not have won.

 

[Zethor]

And from safetytrouser's educated and coherent counter-argument we're back to the standard ad hominems, appeals to authority and googling for "were the nazis left wing". Lets dispense with the and snide insinuations insults first. I've nothing to do with the alt-right, didn't receive my views as some delivered package from any group let alone one that post-dates my awareness of the facts that led me to those views. Ad hominins carry no weight and just repeating "Alt Right" at me is worthless.

As to my "peddling falsities", by all means go back through my posts pick out any reason I gave for why I consider Nazism predominantly Left Wing that you think was a lie. I'll provide you a citation. Go ahead. But it has to be something I actually wrote. Not your re-phrasing of it. Be specific and quote exactly what you think is a lie.

The suggestion of the Nazis becoming Right Wing after the Night of the Long Knives I answered comprehensively in response to safetytrouser's much politer raising of the argument. I provided a substantial list of Left Wing actions and policies by the Nazis after this event so clearly it wasn't an excising of Left Wing ideologies that you pretend it was. Also, as unlike safetytrousers you seem emotionally invested in the superiority of the Left, I'll observe that if the Brown Shirts were what made the Nazis Left Wing then that's not a great advertisement for being Left Wing.

As to the Google'd up list of quotes, I don't find them effective argument. It may be dumb-founding to those who are used to arguing by searching for someone who agrees with them and copy-pasting it into a thread, but I don't believe that because Trotsky thought something, it makes it true. That said, your quotes aren't really a coherent rebuttal to anything I wrote so it's academic. If you feel differently, I'm afraid you're going to have to actually READ your quotes and point out where they contradict my arguments and why they should take precedence.

Finally, for someone so eager to characterise another as politically slanting things you have an almost stereotypical misrepresentation of the Right. No, the attitude of a woman wearing traditional dress is not an attribute of Left or Right. It's traditionalist, sometimes Conservative, it doesn't make the Nazis Right Wing. Only in the Left's heavily biased view of the Right is misogyny a characteristic of the Right. Seriously - does it not strike you that saying misogynistic attitudes are a defining trait of Right Wing might be itself a biased view of the Right? You're confusing some Right Wing groups with defining the Right. Which would be about as fair as me suggesting that Nazism or the Soviets defined the Left. When you reach the point of saying "the Nazis were Right Wing because they [were misogynistic]" you're reaching badly.

You can't back up your claim which means only you and some elements of the alt-right share the looney view that the Nazis were left wing. But since you have nothing to do with the alt-right, it must be a coincidence. Got it, carry on then.

 

[mistersprinkles]

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....

Utter stupidity

Did Hitler purposely let the soilders at Dunkirk escape?

Yes. Again, utter stupidity.

Apparently Hitler had a great deal of respect for the Brits (there have been many documentaries on this) and felt great pity for them. He let the soldiers escape at Dunkirk (which contributed to Germany's loss) as well as stopping the bombing of Great Britain (again, contributing to Germany's loss) and he also refused to invade Great Britain, despite plans being fully drawn up (seriously seriously seriously contributing to Germany's loss).

Also, including "heil Hitler" in every Enigma message was utterly retarded, as this was the key to the Brits cracking the code. (I have massive respect for Mr. Touring, who cracked the code and gave us the modern computer. Shame that this hero of the highest order was persecuted for his homosexuality eventually driving him to suicide)

Adolf was an idiot. Thank god. Otherwise we'd all be goose stepping and the Jews would have been exterminated.

 

[Nitefly]

Not intending to sound all high and mighty about it, as it’s not a big deal for me, but it’s kinda odd that there’s no rememberance Sunday thread this year but this one regarding war thrives.

RIP to the fallen.

 

[statler82]

This puts the losses into a grim perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU

 

[Angilion]

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....

1) Germany had just conquered Europe. All of it. In weeks. With hardly any losses. Compare that with WW1, where ~ 2million German soldiers were killed and Germany lost the war. Clearly Germany in WW2 was vastly more powerful than Germany in WW1.

2) In WW1, Germany beat Russia repeatedly. Almost every major engagement was a German victory after initial losses in the eastern part of Germany (which Germany soon reversed). And Germany was so vastly more powerful now, as proven by the comparison above.

3) The USSR had just engaged in a full on war against Finland, which it outnumbered ridiculously. In tanks and planes, which Germany knew very well were key factors in war at that time, the USSR outnumbered Finland almost 100 to 1. Finland was completely isolated and couldn't even get guns from elsewhere, let alone any significant support. They were on their own, fighting a USSR with ludicrously superior numbers. The USSR barely won that war.

Given that information, which was current for that time, it was "obvious" that the USSR military was crap and the German military was superb. That also fitted in nicely with Htler's preconceived belief in German superiority. So it was "obvious" that Germany could defeat the USSR, probably very easily and quickly. So why not attack Russia, defeat it quickly and free up Germany to concentrate on other areas while also freeing up Japan (Germany's best ally) to concentrate on other areas as well? The USSR would probably surrender before Christmas.

We have the benefit of hindsight to let us know that the USSR was a lot more powerful than it appeared to be and bitterly determined to resist invasion at any cost, any cost at all. But Hitler didn't. It wouldn't have seemed as stupid an idea to him as it does to us.

Did Hitler purposely let the soilders at Dunkirk escape?

Maybe, but I think probably not. It's possible on the basis that Hitler would have preferred the UK to be a subordinate ally like Italy or to surrender and there's evidence that he thought those were possibilities at that time. Japan and the USSR were effectively allied with Germany, all of Europe was either under Nazi control or under the control of subordinate allies of the Nazis, the USA was staunchly isolationist and the British Empire was very spread out and much less strong than it had been. Also, there was a fascist movement in Britain itself. It wouldn't have been insane at that time to think that there was a possibility that the UK would become a subordinate ally or surrender.

But I think the key reason was lack of information, lack of cohesion in the German military and the screwed up political situation of a wildly egotistical dictator with people in various positions trying to gain his favour and thus power. The famous blitzkrieg wasn't really planned as such (that name was given to it later, by a newspaper IIRC) and resulted in a bunch of seperate units under seperate command in places they weren't exactly expected to be, not working as a whole and with contradicting orders.

Hitler didn't actually issue the halt order. That was done by one of the (too many) German commanders, who didn't really know what the British forces were and didn't really know what the effective German forces were either. Which ones were available for Dunkirk and which ones had already been sent to the advance on Paris? Someone would know, but who? Some units were getting contradictory orders. Which one had they obeyed?

As for the overall question of whether Germany could have won WW2...I think maybe if Britain had surrendered and Germany hadn't invaded the USSR. Maybe. Maybe they could have gained more resources and more advances in military technology if they hadn't been fighting Britain and all the other forces that joined Britain (India, Australia/New Zealand, Polish exiles, French exiles and French imperial forces, etc). Maybe they could have taken control of the middle east and wouldn't have been so short of oil for planes and vehicles. Maybe they could have fobbed off the USSR for long enough to gain enough of a technological edge to defeat them, maybe in combination with Japan attacking the USSR from the other side. Maybe the USA would have remained isolationist after a British surrender and maybe then Germany could have defeated the USA later on, after having developed more advanced weapons. Maybe threatening nukes from south america, for example. Maybe. Possibly.

I have a recommendation for a Youtube channel for you. Military History Visualized. It's mainly about Germany in WW2. He covers other aspects of military history, but that's his main area.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK09g6gYGMvU-0x1VCF1hgA

 

[Silly Goose On The Loose]

The most fascinating thing is how Hitler wasn't assassinated because a briefcase was moved by accident. I wonder what the world would look like had Valkyrie been successful...

 

[Rroff]

1) Germany had just conquered Europe. All of it. In weeks. With hardly any losses. Compare that with WW1, where ~ 2million German soldiers were killed and Germany lost the war. Clearly Germany in WW2 was vastly more powerful than Germany in WW1.

WW1 German army had high levels of conscription and used older tactics of trying to overwhelm an enemy with numbers and often came up against professional and battle experienced British who didn't just retreat under pressure.

WW2 German army had a far higher level of professional soldiers and thanks to WW1 many more experienced military personnel who were aware that you needed to stay abreast of tactics, etc. were much better prepared and drilled to use disciplined tactics on the battlefield and came up against a far less prepared than they should have been forces who were often woefully unprepared due to the kind of things we are seeing in the world today - cuts and denial - people so convinced the world had moved into a new era of peace and so on due to increased global reach of technology, commerce and industry, etc. that large scale war was inconceivable.

One thing I find quite fascinating about WW2 was the invasion of Denmark - despite being hampered by not being allowed to prepare defences, etc. because of some crazy idea it might antagonise the Germans (people who think this kind of thing are entirely stupid) and despite bing outnumbered 10:1 and outgunned except for their 20mm cannon they put up one **** of a fight and through a mixture of skill and sheer bravery killing Germans at a rate of 10:1 before being ordered to capitulate - if they had been allowed to prepare and as a precaution got mass production of their 20mm cannons under way early its quite possible the Germans would have been stopped there and then (or wouldn't have invaded them in a hurry).

Makes quite a difference.

 

[Angilion]

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. [..]

I'm pretty sure it wasn't possible. An opposed amphibious assault is a bloody nightmare in the best circumstances and it was far from the best circumstances from a German point of view at that time. Germany had no plan for such an assault. Germany had no equipment for such an assault. It had a bunch of converted river barges, many of which didn't even move under their own power and had to be towed. Given the notoriously dangerous seas, even a completely uncontested landing would have been quite dangerous under those circumstances. But it wouldn't have been uncontested because the British Royal Navy had naval superiority. Overwhelmingly so. Towing soldiers over in crowded river barges would have been a massacre. The Luftwaffe didn't have air superiority and even if they had had air superiority they didn't have all that much in the way of planes for attacking ships so even if they had had air superiority (which they didn't) they still wouldn't have been able to prevent the royal navy slaughtering the supposed invasion force.

Also, there were rather a lot of soldiers in Britain at the time along with a strong inclination to resistance and a significant manufacturing base for making weapons (including ones that could be made in any garage using widely available tools). Even if the German invasion force had reached Britain and had made a successful opposed landing (which it wouldn't have done), what then? Poor supply lines over the sea and everyone and their dog shooting Germans at every available opportunity in between destroying the vulnerable barges that brought the invasion force over and would be needed to bring more German soldiers over.

It would have been a good move for Germany if they could have done it, but I'm pretty sure they couldn't do it.

 

[dowie]

No they lost.... or the last 60 years have been a dream.

So no they could not have won.

that makes no sense, just because they did lose doesn't mean they couldn't have won

 

[Rroff]

(including ones that could be made in any garage using widely available tools)

There is an interesting video somewhere on one of those.

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXz2g8F-Ccs

 

[Angilion]

Fascism and nationalism are historically right wing positions. This is mainly because right wing political ideologies naturally tend towards authoritarianism.

As do left wing ideologies. Also, fascism is only right wing if you make nationalism a requirement of fascism. Which some people do and some people don't. There isn't an agreed definition of the word, not really. Nationalism I'll give you. That is historically more of a right wing position than a left wing position. Although not entirely.

I'm far from convinced that the left/right distinction is accurate or even very useful. I am convinced that the extremes of each are far more alike than different. If I was to draw a line with far right at one end and far left at the other end, it would be a horseshoe rather than a straight line. Or maybe a circle.

 

[Rroff]

Ultimately left wing ideologies tend to end up going towards totalitarianism anyhow partly due to the problem of reconciling between people who have different opinions of the value of their effort and that of other people. I'd agree that often the lines become blurred on the extremes and its certainly not opposing ends of a straight line.

 

[Angilion]

You can't back up your claim which means only you and some elements of the alt-right share the looney view that the Nazis were left wing. But since you have nothing to do with the alt-right, it must be a coincidence. Got it, carry on then.

Hello! I'm what used to be called a liberal, before the word was usurped and ruined by the authoritarian bigots who dominate "liberalism" now. I'm mostly a socialist. On the political quadrant tests, I end up about a third of the way into the left-wing libertarian quadrant.

I think that h4rm0ny is correct about this particular thing. The Nazis were initially very left wing, included quite a few ex-communists who converted since much of the foundation of the ideologies was the same, and retained some left wing positions even after gaining full power.

It's possible that you're such an extremist that you regard a leftish classical liberal as being a right wing extremist. I've been called a fascist before now. I've also been called a communist. A white supremacist and a traitor to the white race. A misogynist and a misandrist. Etc. All for the same views. There's a tendency for extremists to see only two possible extremes, theirs and THE ENEMY, and assume that anyone who doesn't agree with them is the other extreme (which they see as being the utter opposite when it fact it's just a slightly different version of the same thing, but that's a different argument). So...do you think I'm a right wing extremist too?

 

[Sankari]

So much derp in the last 10 posts or so. Not going to waste my time on it.