Germany winning?

Discussion in 'General' started by Patton, May 17, 2007.

  1. Patton

    Patton Member

    What are the chances of Germany waiting until sometime in 1944 to start WW2? If they had the technology that they did by this time, they might have had the ability to destroy the U.S.S.R. or britain before the U.S.A. got involed. Or if they just left the U.S.S.R. alone to begin with.
     
  2. Kyt

    Kyt Very Senior Member

    If they had the technology that they did by this time,

    None of the countries would have had the technology relative to year of introduction without the war.

    Just taking Germany as an example, their heavy tank development was partly a result of their experiences on the Eastern front, and their aircraft development was partly a result of the allied bombing campaigns.

    By the middle of the war, weapons development for most of the countries had become reactive rather than proactive.

    So, if the Germans had decided to postpone the war until 1944 then, yes, the weapons would have been better than 1939, but not as good as they actually were by 1944.
     
  3. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    I always get the impression that Germany's timing for their first strike, either by malignant design or sheer dumb luck was exquisite. If they'd waited just one more winter I feel that they'd have had far less chance of breaking the French & the BEF in the field. Mechanisation, and perhaps even modernisation, for both those forces was on the brink of decent solid establishment and there may just have been time for the French to sort out their somewhat precarious organisational situation by then?
     
  4. MikB

    MikB Senior Member

    Any serious study shows there was very little about the way things happened that could have been much different. Germany and the USSR would have been unable to live at peace much longer than they did whatever happened.

    As soon as any powerful enemy declared war, control was out of German hands.

    On the other hand, both Britain and France were already rearming in '39 with weaponry as good as the Germans'. Hitler always knew that with so many opponents he could only win if he could do it quickly. Wait until '44? No chance!

    Regards,
    MikB
     
  5. Roddoss72

    Roddoss72 Junior Member

    As far as i understand prior to the war Adolf Hitler spoke to the chiefs of the OKH (Army), OKL (Luftwaffe) and the OKM (Navy) and asked each one when could each branch be ready for general war, and as far as i can assertain that the response was as follows

    OKH 1941
    OKL 1938
    OKM 1944 (this is when the planned Z Plan was to be completed)

    But what i understand also that Germany had no choice but to wage war in 1939 as she owed several nations alot of money, particularly Poland, this is what i have read and been told (whether this is true i can not say).:wow:
     
  6. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    If they'd waited just one more winter I feel that they'd have had far less chance of breaking the French & the BEF in the field. Mechanisation, and perhaps even modernisation, for both those forces was on the brink of decent solid establishment and there may just have been time for the French to sort out their somewhat precarious organisational situation by then?


    Von Poop,

    Could you elaborate on this thought a bit more. I'm not disagreeing with you in the least, I just want to know what is driving your thinking on this in bit more detail.
     
  7. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    The French and British Armies were dated and organisationally weak (in comparison to the relatively advanced Enemy), & cooperation with the Neutral Belgians, Dutch etc. was very poor, but things were improving quite rapidly.
    If Fall Gelb had come any later the allies may just have got their mechanisation/equipment/doctrinal/political/planning act together enough to have resisted the blitzkrieg. Maybe even no need for the chaotic advances of the Dyle plan, or time for new and cohesive defences to have been built along those lines.
    All speculation really, as I suspect no state was 'serious' enough about warfare at that point to resist the attack but particularly on the political/equipment side there was potential for great improvements being made in a fairly short time.
     
  8. hauptman111

    hauptman111 Junior Member

    if they had left russia alone they might have won.
     
  9. Harry Ree

    Harry Ree Very Senior Member

    In the past I have seen a reference to Hitler anticipating that the European War including the conquest of Russia to the Urals would be concluded by 1950 and the Third Reich Empire (a 1000 year vision) would be celebrated by the unveiling of Speer's reborn masterpieces of Germania (Berlin) and Linz.

    He obviously did not understand geography for Germany was virtually land locked and the successful policy of detaching Germany from the the raw materials neccessary to wage war was being enacted again by the Allies as it was during the Great War. A case of history repeating itself.
     
  10. Peter Clare

    Peter Clare Very Senior Member

    The German Navy was certainly not ready for war.

    At the end of May 1938 Hitler told the Commander-in-Chief Naval Forces that Britain must be regarded as a possible adversary but there was no immediate prospect of a conflict with her. The Commander-in-Chief then appointed a planning committe in the autumn of 1938 in light of this new potential enemy to recomend the naval forces that would be required.

    A long term building programme was drawn up, the so-called Z plan, which envisaged the completion of the following ships by 1948:

    6 battleships of 50,000 tons (in addition to the Bismarck and the Tirpitz)

    8 (later 12) cruisers of 20,000 tons. (Originally these ships were to have been enlargements of the pocket battleship design, six 11-in guns, but in later versions of the Z-plan their place was taken by three ships of about 30,000 tons mounting six 15-in guns)

    4 aircraft carries of 20,000 tons

    A large number of light cruisers

    233 U-boats

    In January 1939 Hitler approved this building plan but demanded it be completed in six years.

    As can be seen, the German navy did not expect war for a number of years, in fact as far as the U-boat was was concerned, considering the above given numbers, when war broke out there were just 30 boats at sea. In December 1939 there was 38 at sea, March 1940 there was 31 at sea, June 1940 26 at sea November 1940 25 at sea and in February 1941 22 at sea, an all time low.
     
  11. stevew

    stevew Senior Member

    Another if if if thread. Just a personal opinion, nothing to back it up, but there is every chance the Germans would've been fighting amongst themselves if there was no war in '39. Just amazing how every post has a different opinion. Something that would've been taken away from us had the Nazi's won
     
  12. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    I know what you mean when they spiral out of control Steve (Iceland as a Hovercraft anyone?) or are constantly used as a tool to defend more and more tenuous propositions, but if you follow a total rejection of 'what if' questions then where's the point in any discussion of historical events?

    We would simply have a list of; 'This happened. Then another thing happened. Then something else happened.' without much scope for assessing the potential significance of given decisions or paths taken by major players or powers. The ambiguities of choice and it's effects on all other areas of a given period are surely worthwhile areas of interest if kept within reason? They can inform enormously on why a given decision was a 'good', 'bad' or even indifferent one. The 'what if?' is inextricably bound up with the 'why?', and that's what makes a subjective view of history interesting to me.

    Cheers,
    Adam.
     
  13. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Senior Member

    So far no one has brought up the bigger picture. What does Japan do? If they follow the historical time line and the US gets into a Pacific war then Germany in 1944 is faced with either the possibility of US involvement on a massive scale with them alreadly fully mobilized or, something like lend-lease on a massive scale literally overwhelming the Germans with material to France and Britain.
    The problem for Germany is the longer they wait the better off Britain, France, and Russia are in terms of readiness for war. Waiting until 1944 only ensures Germany loses faster.
     
  14. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    Very good point, Terry. I agree that the outcomes would have been no different, only delayed by the passing of peaceful times in Europe.
    To carry your thoughts on further, would Germany have been as or more effective with submarine warfare in 1944, having more more and better boats? Certainly the Western powers affected by Japan's 1941-42 offensives would have been well mobilized by 1944, but would they have been as effective in ASW in 1944, facing the U-boats for the first time? Japan did not use subs in the same manner as did Germany (to interdict shipping) and both the UK and the US both had deadly learning curves when facing the meager numbers of boats that were available to the Kriegsmarine in 1939-40 and 1942.
     
  15. Peter Clare

    Peter Clare Very Senior Member

    Before the war Doenitz had estimated that if the allies adopted a world-wide convoy system 300 U-boats would be necessary to achieve decisive results.

    865 U-boats were operationally deployed during WWII: 400 of these failed to hit anything at all.
     
  16. Gibbo

    Gibbo Senior Member

    The Germans should have waited argument is usually based on the Z Plan & it certainly would have been a more formidable fleet than the Kriegsmarine actually possessed. One problem with this, though, is that there's a tendency to compare it with the actual strength of the Royal Navy in 1939 rather than its potential strength in 1948. In 1939 the RN had 12 battleships, of which 2 were post WWI & 4 had been heavily reconstructed, 3 battle cruisers, one of which had been heavily reconstructed, 4 fleet carriers & 3 small & slow carriers. From 1939-46, Britain built 6 battleships, 6 fleet carriers, 8 light fleet carriers, 3 aircraft maintenance ships that could be used as light carriers & 4 escort carriers. This is ships built in British yards, it doesn't count US lend lease escort carriers. In addition to the ships actually built, construction of the 4 Lion class battleships (45,000 tons with 9 16 inch guns) was suspended to free up shipyards for wartime repair work & construction of 10 light fleet carriers & 3 fleet carriers was suspended at the end of the war. 9 & 2 respectively were eventually finished in the 1950s, some for Commonwealth & foreign navies. As well, Hood might have been reconstructed had war come later; she was due for this but couldn't be taken out of service until the first of the KGV class was ready.

    That adds up to 10 new battleships, admittedly smaller than the German ones but backed by around 20 fleet carriers. For convoy escort against surface raiders there are 15 older battleships & 7 small carriers.

    Perhaps the RN wouldn't have built as many carriers without the experience of war, unless the Pacific war still goes ahead, but other types of vessel could have replaced them & this does show that the UK's shipbuilding capacity would have produced a stronger fleet than the Z Fleet. Possibly some of the older battleships would have had to have been scrapped in order to man this fleet but it would still be superior to the enemy.
     
  17. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Senior Member

    To carry your thoughts on further, would Germany have been as or more effective with submarine warfare in 1944, having more more and better boats? Certainly the Western powers affected by Japan's 1941-42 offensives would have been well mobilized by 1944, but would they have been as effective in ASW in 1944, facing the U-boats for the first time? Japan did not use subs in the same manner as did Germany (to interdict shipping) and both the UK and the US both had deadly learning curves when facing the meager numbers of boats that were available to the Kriegsmarine in 1939-40 and 1942.

    I don't think it would have made alot of difference. The Germans would not have the experiance they got originally while the Allies would have had at least some fighting the Japanese. Sonar would have improved less and some ASW weapons like Hedgehog would not have been developed. On the flip side the Germans would have still been using boats like the Type IX and VII while the Walther H2O2 boats and the Type XXI would have gone undeveloped.
    The problem for the Germans would now be that they were facing a much better equipped opponet at sea. The British would have more destroyers and other escorts and these would be fully equipped with radar and improved AA systems. More carriers and much more effective aircraft would also be present. This means German maritime patrol aircraft like the Fw 200 would be nearly worthless instead of effective as they historically were. The surface attack wolf pack would be a suicidal policy in the face of radar and more escorts.
    The Germans, being very conservative when it comes to naval development, would likely also not have done alot with radar on their own beyond very basic systems. Their lack of experiance with aerial attacks on their ships would have left them behind the Allies in this area. The schnorkel and other wartime submarine developments would also not be available until it became obvious that their current subs were not capable of operating on the surface.
    Once again, this what-if is a double edged sword. Both sides will continue to advance and change their capabilities, not just one. Many people that start one of these type threads initially only look at one side and think that the other will somehow remain static while their enemy greatly improves. Reality is not that simple or ignorant.
     
  18. WotNoChad?

    WotNoChad? Senior Member

    The French and British Armies were dated and organisationally weak (in comparison to the relatively advanced Enemy), & cooperation with the Neutral Belgians, Dutch etc. was very poor, but things were improving quite rapidly.

    That's a good point and I'd like to add to it. French forces morale and discipline was also very poor in '39. From contemporary reports from visiting Brits I think it would be hard to imagine it being lower without verging on mutiny. Unfortunately can't give a source for that, as I didn't make a note of it, one of those reading in passing things. :rolleyes:
     
  19. deadb_tch

    deadb_tch the deadliest b#tch ever

    Another "what if?" And the aswer - "hell, what?" :)) just kidding. For me answer on what if Germany would (not sure what type of verbs to use there, plz improve my english by advices if any needed) win I found in book of Robert Harris "Fatherland". It is great book for me. Although it is popular book and u can found some proms with story, but this book gives very rigth thing - any regime such Nazi or Soviet or Khmer Rouge with cult of dictator and terror in its base will fall - sooner or later. History prove this every time such regime is raised. It will fall - no matter from inside by revolution, or from outside by forces of another country (yes, but Iraq is bad example of this).
     
  20. kfz

    kfz Very Senior Member

    if they had left russia alone they might have won.


    Silly thing to say , Germany vs Soviets (not Russia) was world war 2 in europe. Thats what it was about. Hitler didnt want France or even Britain. Sideshow to the real event.

    Kev
     

Share This Page