Jump to content


How could Germany have won WWII?


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

GroomingChief65-x #101 Posted 04 September 2019 - 09:32 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10524 battles
  • 546
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View Postjanbonator, on 23 August 2019 - 01:49 PM, said:

 

..and that's what they did. They call it the EU. The Fourth Reich.

 

Operation Sealion was never going to work. Surface fleet was too small, air superiority not complete, intelligence was not good and the time of the year was not correct. I guess they could've postponed it until 1942, but I don't think it would've changed much. It took the Allies years to invent and build up equipment for an amphibious invasion of such scale, and by the time they did they had total air and sea superiority. Meanwhile, the Red Army was deployed in a posture that looked more like an army ready for an offensive rather than defense in depth, which lead to massive encirclements when Barbarossa commenced. It would've taken a lot of guts just to leave them there and hope they don't get any ideas while Germany would be trying to invade Britain.

 

As for North Africa and the Middle-East, I'm not sure sending any more boots at the problem would've helped the Germans and Italians. The problem wasn't the troops or their quality, it was supply. The axis forces couldn't improve their supply situation without taking control of Malta and the Mediterranean at large, which they were not equipped to do. In hindsight, the whole North African expedition might have only hindered their war effort and could've tipped the scales in the battle for Moscow, for example - although overall I don't think it would've changed the outcome even if the Wehrmacht had captured Moscow. They'd just managed what Napoleon achieved earlier, i.e. nothing but bloodshed.

 

The biggest problem with operation sea lion was quite simply that Hitler really had no heart for it. He wanted nothing to do with obliterating those whom he considered to be of his own race. He decided instead to try to apply pressure with air power to bring about a peace agreement. It's ironic that someone known for pure brutality actually lost his chance to win the war by allowing the British to pick themselves up after Dunkirk.  Immediately after Dunkirk they literally had nothing for arms. We can talk about a navy all day long but if you ever landed any kind of force there at that point in time they had next to nothing.  I once saw an improvised armored vehicle they had with cinder blocks stacked up on it for armor in preparation for defense of an invasion.  

 

If you take the island nation, there is no possibility of a Normandy invasion, none of those 'fortress Europe' defenses Rommel was all caught up in etc, in short there would then be no concern over a possible Western front. Hitler could then unleash all of the divisions that were being held back when the invasion of Russia began.  Whether that would have turned the tide on the Eastern front I don't know. I happen to think it may well have been just enough but that's only personal opinion. 



IBROX 04-x #102 Posted 04 September 2019 - 09:52 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 21915 battles
  • 11,379
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    11-10-2014

View Postmmurdock82abn, on 23 August 2019 - 10:09 PM, said:

Perhaps most of all though, instead of rounding up and sending millions upon millions of "undesirables" and sending them to death camps. Instead, welcoming and befriending them into military service with the Reich, things would have been very different. Millions upon millions of more troops to send at his foes.

 

This guy gets it. 

Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm

 

 

 


NSW Mntd Rifles-x #103 Posted 13 October 2019 - 04:40 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 42848 battles
  • 603
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostIBROX 04, on 05 September 2019 - 07:52 AM, said:

 

This guy gets it. 

 

He certainly doesn't "get" what the Third Reich was about.

IBROX 04-x #104 Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:58 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 21915 battles
  • 11,379
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    11-10-2014

View PostNSW Mntd Rifles, on 13 October 2019 - 05:40 AM, said:

 

He certainly doesn't "get" what the Third Reich was about.

 

How could Germany have Won WW2... Doesn't matter if he doesn't get it or not. 

Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm

 

 

 


TennisMan56-x #105 Posted 14 October 2019 - 11:15 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 40307 battles
  • 1,095
  • [THNTR]
  • Member since:
    02-02-2017
Holly crap quit coming up with ideas one could be right, Germany may have invented time travel. The may go forward in time find the answer, travel back in time and make it happen. :harp:

Huncho_Mystic-p #106 Posted 15 October 2019 - 03:41 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11428 battles
  • 1,213
  • [ELDRZ]
  • Member since:
    01-24-2016

View PostTennisMan56, on 14 October 2019 - 03:15 PM, said:

Holly crap quit coming up with ideas one could be right, Germany may have invented time travel. The may go forward in time find the answer, travel back in time and make it happen. :harp:

 

LOL- Germany winning WW II would be bad, but maybe if they went back in time and the Central powers survived WWI, we might be better off?

Tornado F7-x #107 Posted 04 February 2020 - 07:15 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 22831 battles
  • 347
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

I would argue that Germany and Japan did win WW2... Once they surrendered. America was quick to help them rebuild their economies, leading to their economic dominance in recent decades. Meanwhile the allied nations who resisted Germany and Japan were left to struggle on, crippled by huge war debt. France meanwhile, having surrendered quickly to the Nazis, had comparatively little war debt. Which probably explains their ability to retire in their 50s, with a full state pension, to this day. Seems like just surrendering is the way to go... Weird. And sad.

 



Tornado F7-x #108 Posted 09 February 2020 - 12:57 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 22831 battles
  • 347
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014
Something else to bear in mind is that for the first 2 years of WW2 the Nazi war machine was largely fueled, fed, and otherwise supplied by the Soviet Union. Even as Barbarossa began, Soviet raw materials, food, and fuel were being shipped west by rail. Stalin was caught completely by surprise, despite multiple prior warnings, and went into depressed isolation as Nazi forces destroyed much of his military and raced east. Evidently he had been so caught up in seizing eastern Poland, the Baltic States, invading Finland, and purging his officer corps, that he failed to recognise the true threat. If the Soviets had cut that supply line earlier in the war, especially before the fall of France, Nazi Germany could have been quickly defeated, saving many millions of lives, especially Soviets. Curious how most historians fail to notice, or at least mention, this.

SlagInGristle-x #109 Posted 06 April 2020 - 12:25 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 40308 battles
  • 4,138
  • [6SIC6]
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014
In 1934 Churchill said Germany needed to me made to go to war asap or Britain would loose its global position and never recover it.... it was all a setup. If you read a century of warfare it focuses on several wars that didn’t even need to happen. In retrospect Stalin was the smart one. Even with all the pressure and lies trying to get him to attack Germany he refused but they got into hitlers head.... he believed the soviets were going to attack and so he launched what would be the stupidest war ever..... it settled nothing, reduced Germany to a smoldering ruin, then a client state. The rest of the outcomes of the war resulted in more wars and millions of deaths globally with the largest concentration of wealth ever in history....... absolute failed the human race he did.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users