Gradually, the Germans were allowed to hold local elections at various levels. What relationship did the Nazis have with World War 2? Economy was in ruins after using massive resources for war. How would Germany have been able to win World War 2? They were gassed, burned to death, worked to death, mistreated and mal-nurished. The US had just invested millions arming its forces with the Krag rifle.
How the Treaty of Versailles and German Guilt Led to World War II
Where it DID make a difference was in Korea. You know, like the ones with Mussolini fucking Hitler up the ass , or the one where Hitler and Mussolini get reamed. Summary of comment: I'm definitely late to class! I think I must have been sick that day. If I'd been Hitler, I think I'd have tried to press the western front, and delay if possible the eastern front and the Mediterranean.
You bring up another question: I'm reminded of Robert Harris' novel Fatherland, set in , in an alternate world where the US never entered the war, and Germany won Hitler is now 75, and Speer has transformed Berlin. The Brits sure felt the Yanks should have come in long before they did.
The Mediterranean was fought mostly because: So long as Britain could get food and supplies from North America, and oil and various other materials from the Middle East and India, why would they surrender? It was the Nazis with the fuel problems which made Hitler and his generals do some stupid things, like trying to reach the Caucasus to get his fuel. Hitler would not have ignored the Eastern Front.
Nazism was all about anti-bolshevism and Hitler hate hate hated the Soviets, and even the Slavic peoples. I can envision a scenario in which the U. Also an interesting factor: Actually, not. The war in the SU was lost because of the hard russian winter weakening the unprepared german forces well, the russian, too, but they had It was his demand that cities like Stalingrad would be made fortresses to secure the claimed land - but cut off from sufficient supplies, they couldn't do anything but fall at some point.
Indeed, if only France and Poland knew all they had to do to defeat the vaunted Wehrmacht was throw snowflakes at them, perhaps the entire course of the war would have changed. Because the french winter is known for its merciless cold, and the attack on poland for its immense duration My comment wasn't meant to imply that that was the reason Germany lost the war.
I read in a Political Science class that one of the reasons for the kind of illogical timing of Barbarossa was that the USSR was on the up-and-up and Germany wanted to take them out before they grew too powerful. This is related to the fact that Nazism was all about taking out the damn commies and Germany was certain to go to war with the Soviets eventually.
Yes, that is true, too. The ideology of national socialism inclined the destruction of communism, and Hitler never trusted the pact with Stalin. Hitler had several tactical blunders that cost him the war. First, and most importantly in my mind, is the failure at Dunkirk. I'll paint the picture.
The Nazi's are very successfully using Blitzkrieg tactics to blaze across Western Europe and conquer everywhere they went.
Download Sex Around The World Sexy Swedish Girls From JillThey pushed a British expeditionary force back to the Port of Dunkirk and were ready to go in for the kill and knock off an extremely large group of soldiers, around something like , according to most sources. But all of the sudden word came from Hitler to stop the tanks.
Remember the one major gaff that most generals make is to overextend in Europe, think Napoleon. However what Hitler did not realize is that times had changed. By very nature his over-extension was his greatest strength, it was the lightning fast tank charges that worked to the advantage of the Germans.
This reluctance of Hitler to continue on to Dunkirk allowed for what has been called the "miracle at Dunkirk" where the British Army and change from other groups was shepherded back to Britain by a fleet of volunteer fishing boats from across the channel. It is estimated that again, , troops, were rescued from Dunkirk.
Now had this expeditionary force been lost, it all but insured that any attempt at an invasion of Britain by Hitler would have been an absolute success up to debate though, my opinion is that the German war machine was much less successful in urban fighting and that Britain would have made it much harder to employ Blitzkrieg tactics , but I digress. Lets assume Hitler takes Britain.
Now he can turn the entire German army around and go fight a one front war in Russia, which surely would have made up for any future blunders he made i. Had he had his full force at Stalingrad, he would have won the battle in my opinion, and then had no problem whatsoever taking Moscow.
Where he would have gone from there we will never know because obviously he never got that far, but certainly any resistance put up by the Americans at this point would have been far less than what happened in fact because Hitler would have a full fighting force as well as America having a force not augmented by British troops.
The German's couldn't do jack about Dunkirk if they wanted to. The Germany army was still using horse carts for supply, and the panzers were running out of fuel and parts. Not to mention that Dunkirk is bad tank country. The Brits would have defended the port for long enough to evacuate. They might lose more men, but the bulk of the force would be fine.
And Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of Great Britain, is considered to be near impossible by almost all military historians. The Kriegsmarine was a shadow of the Royal Navy - the only thing they were better at was submarine warfare, and submarines would be of little use in a cross-Channel invasion. The Germans didn't even have landing craft - they were planning on relying on glorified river barges.
Combined with the fact that the Luftwaffe failed to achieve air dominance, any German invasion, even without a miracle at Dunkirk, would have failed miserably for the Germans. The fact is, there is no way Germany could have successfully invaded Britain. However I think that Dunkirk would have been categorized as one of the greatest military slaughters of all time.
As tired and as far into enemy territory as the Germans were, the forces in Dunkirk were in no way prepared or dug in for a full on assault by German Panzer divisions. It would have been bloody, and by no means a cake walk for the Germans, but I feel like the sheer force of the Germans would have been too much. I also believe that the Germans never seriously gave consideration to invasion of Britain because of a the still pending results of the Battle of Britain and b because of the ground force they knew was waiting for them on the Isle.
Playing another hypothetical here, had the Germans been successful at Dunkirk but then lost the Battle of Britain, they would not have invaded. Though I would posit that a loss of a force the size that was at Dunkirk would have been a psychological blow to the British that would have lost them the Battle of Britain I could also talk about civilian bombing vs strategic bombing in the campaign but I'll leave that for another time.
I fully enjoy historic debate though and by no means do I think my way is the only way to see this conflict. I'd welcome another response. The panzers were low on supplies and fuel and Dunkirk is bad tank country. Also, flanking would be pretty impossible, since the British are by the sea. If the Germans get to close, the guns of the Royal Navy will tear them apart.
Could the Germans beat the BEF? Yes, but most of the BEF would escape and the moral of the British people would be preserved. If you want the BEF to be eliminated, you would need a timeline in which the Germans somehow block the BEF from reaching the Channel coast, which is unlikely. Germany generals never took the idea of invading Britain seriously due to the dominance of the Royal Navy and the failure of the Luftwaffe.
However, before the failure of the Luftwaffe, Hitler clearly did take it seriously, ordering the construction of his river barges. The idea that the Germans could have won the Battle of Britain had then not redirected towards civilian targets is simple, but not really correct.
All the RAF would do if the Luftwaffe destroyed most of their airfields in the south would be to move their facilities to the north. The range of the Messerschmitt BF was limited, so they wouldn't be able to properly protect the Luftwaffe's bombers if they ventured anywhere towards the RAF bases in the north. Indeed, BF s often were only able to fight for ten minutes or so before having to cross back to France, since dogfighting burns more fuel than normal flight, and multiple Luftwaffe pilots simple ran out of fuel over the Channel.
I'm not sure whether it applies or not, but what was the range of Spitfires compared to the BF ? Would the same problem have applied for British attacks on German controlled airbases on the continent because of the limited range? I know there were examples of RAF bailing into the channel on missions to France.
I'm not quite sure, but the Spitfires that were around during the Battle of Britain did have pretty poor range. They were interceptors, after all, which is why the RAF requested a longer-range plane from North American Aviation - which would result in the P They still would have fought in the air, clearly they were able to win there; losing at Dunkirk would not have had much affect on the air war.
Absolutely true, leads to another blunder of Hitler's that is the switching from strategic bombing of targets to civilian targets in the Battle of Britain. I'm not sure of your opinion on the topic, but in my study I find that the British may well have lost the Battle of Britain had Hitler not eased on his strategic bombing of airfields, supply depots, and industrial sites.
My explanation has been cursory at best and you could probably add more detail that I have been lacking so far. Britain would have lost the Battle of Britain had it not been for a mistake. The RAF was so close to collapsing. Like, another couple of days and it would have been over. The mistake that came about in Britain's favor was the accidental night bombing of Harrow. The British in turn bombed Berlin as revenge, and from then on, the Germans bombed cities, and not RAF infrastructure.
Had the Luftwaffe continued to go after airfields for another week, it would have been their victory. That's an entire discussion of its own. Factories were in the north, out of range of German bombers. If an airfield was bombed, any flat area of countryside could serve as a temporary airstrip for fighter planes, and the airfield would be functional again in quick order anyway.
I'll happily concede your last point about how hard it is to actually render an airstrip inoperable, but the fact that factories were in the north of England didn't stop them from being bombed. Lots of northern cities were well within bomber range. But they were out of effective fighter range. Bombers not protected by fighters were easy targets, as early Allied bombing over Germany proved, and the German's don't have the resources to replace them.
Nope, not my area or expertise. I could tell you all about the construction of gender during the war, or the transformation of the countryside from wartime agricultural policies. As for the actual conduct of the war, all I know is the usual narrative of British advantage of radar, the way that the RAF was on the brink until the Germans began bombing the cities, the limitations of the Me and German bombers, which were short-range and better suited to tactical roles.
Now, I'm a little suspicious of that narrative, but only because those are the stories I read growing up, and that was 20 years ago and given the state of my local library, those books were probably 20 years old then. I can't imagine that such a narrative would go unchallenged, though I have no idea what those challenges look like. I'd be interested to know the state of historiography on the Battle of Britain, and if those challenges have been effective or not.
It's interesting to consider some of the circumstances there. Of course, that's still a quarter of the food supply that had to come from overseas, principally from the United States but also the empire. Moreover, much of the reason they were able to improve their own food production was through imports of machinery and chemicals.
Most importantly, though, was that this boost in food production was not sustainable. It required plowing up hillsides and using a lot of fertilizers, and those have diminishing returns. The worst wartime years for British agriculture were actually and , though by that point American supplies were much more secure.
Now, could the German navy have really won the war in the Atlantic? That's harder to say; they gave it a pretty good go, but the Royal Navy and especially the US Navy were tough opponents. If the US stayed out of the war and Britain had to ship and protect all of its food supplies, they would have been in serious trouble. With the US in the war, "Oceania" could and did secure food supplies.
Flawed logic. You make amendments solely for the German side without taking into considering the greater implications their victories or defeats would have had on the rest of the world. This is more my personal opinion on the course the war would have taken than an actual historical analysis of what would have happened.
Thanks for pointing this section out, I tend to ramble when I talk history. I see though that you are an expert on the Soviet Union, I myself not having a great knowledge on the nation, what do you think the implications for the war would have been had Hitler not split the force heading to Stalingrad and instead tried to take the city with full strength? You truthfully would know more about it than I would.
Your personal opinion needs to be based on factual information. If you want to create certain conditions for Germany you have to take into account what those conditions would mean for all the other players in your 'scenario'. The real target were the oil fields in the south, Army Group A possessed more men than Army Group B and its goals were more important than a simple city on the Volga that initially Hitler himself never ordered to be taken but solely put under artillery fire so that the oil traveling up the Volga would be cut off from the rest of the Soviet Union.
I'm noting the personal opinion thing for future posts, I only just discovered the subreddit and am still trying to figure out how I should best mix my opinion with actual established fact. I remember from watching the show "20th century battlefields" episode on Stalingrad that at one point the Russians were actually pushed nearly across the Volga and that only reinforcing troops saved them.
This whole war is very interesting for the plethora of large and small scale tactical lessons that can be drawn from it. If you're interested in Stalingrad read this book. Had the Germans successfully captured and held the oil fields in the Crimea, would that had forced the USSR to capitulate? Or did they have other sources for oil? The majority of Soviet oil at that time was coming from the Caucasus not Crimea , there were other sources but they were not yet productive.
The question is really could the Germans hold the Caucasus and put Soviet oil to use in their war effort. The answer is most likely negative, the Germans already controlled some oil production facilities as they advanced into the Caucasus but could do nothing for the next few years because the Soviets sabotaged them before they retreated.
Would the Germans really have to utilize the Soviet's oil production? Wouldn't denying the USSRs oil been enough? I can't imagine how a modern army would operate without oil. If you have a free oil field in the middle of enemy territory that far away from your own central facilities, why not use them?
At that point in time Hitler was planning to wage a war of attrition, he needed oil. The Soviet Union had other sources of oil that it could draw on, including oil from Iran which it was jointly occupying with British troops. Do you believe the Germans could have even held the Caucasus for the length of time it would have taken for the Soviets to feel the effects of losing that oil production?
It would become a focus, but the Soviets were already well adept at cultivating resources throughout their vast expanse, and as pointed out in another of my responses, there were other sources for getting oil. Capturing the oilfields was never to force the USSR to capitulate, but to ensure the Nazis had enough fuel to actually wage a war.
Think how much oil is in Europe, and where it is located. Germany really only had the Romanian oil fields, and the rest had to come from somewhere else. Britain had the Middle East and the navy to protect the supply lines, which is why the Nazis wanted to take out the Suez to cut them off, leaving only the American oil supplies. As soon as you say "my personal opinion" it kind of deflates what you can bring to the table.
I'm really enjoying this thread, and I'd love to see different angles of a factual analysis come together to give a more complete account of the circumstances and possibilities, but you can't isolate yourself if you want to do that. You made me fetch a book just there, Sean Longdon. You round up the figure saved, , were saved by 'little ships' and the Royal Navy, but also more than , imprecise records but conservative estimate, made it back other ways.
This numbered 40 As well as this human loss, some went to PoW, others died on the forced march to camps or were given No Quarter, there was also great material loss, thousands of guns, vehicles, and hundreds of thousand tons of ammunition, petrol, and other provisions. Dunkirk was almost certainly a defeat in every sense of the word but it was turned into a victory by propaganda - it turned into the tale of 'plucky little Britain'.
What followed Dunkirk was the enlistment of thousands more troops in the Home Guard. In this respect you are correct to say that Dunkirk greatly helped Britain's defense, but it was not in any sense a victory. It was a tactical withdrawl. The narrative of victory though was needed at the time, we needed to believe we could continue and could survive the Nazi onslaught.
The problem with these sorts of narratives though is that we forget the dead and captured. Thanks, this is golden. I think I've read that the Dunkirk evacuation was a major turning point, because it was England's first success in the war. So even beyond the , men rescued, Churchill et al. One wonders why Hitler balked about pushing into Dunkirk.
I'd be grateful if you know of a popular reference work that might touch on this. I alluded to Napoleon in my wall of text above as a historical example of the idea of over stretching in Europe, though by no means is he the only one. It had become fairly common knowledge by this time that the main weakness of an army in Europe is the fact that supply lines tend to be very vulnerable in the course of a great campaign.
Another historic example would be the great Julius Caesar in the Gallic wars, he stretched just a bit too far out into continental Europe and was almost destroyed because of it. I'll look for a source on why Hitler decided to stop, but I offer that explanation in loo of me being unsuccessful.
One of the main reasons is that Goering wanted the Luftwaffe to destroy the British, to show off his fighters and bombers. He convinced Hitler to allow it to happen, and the RAF was able to hold them off long enough for the Miracle at Dunkirk to happen.
Although the British still lost pretty much all of their heavy equipment and anything the troops couldn't carry, so it was still a major loss for the British army. I read a biography on Hitler that commented that he wanted to showcase the power of his air force, so instead of sending In the tanks he sent wave after wave of fighters and bombers. There is a school of thought that it was the counterattack at Arras http: This allowed the BEF time to establish the Dunkirk perimeter.
The Blitzkrieg Legend discusses what happened at Dunkirk. Hey I have a question for you. I recently read a book called Operation Barbarossa by Bryan Fugate. I was curious if you had read it as well, and if so, what you thought of it? I have not. He has another book out which also deals with Barbarossa and has received a lot of negative reviews.
Both of his books are dated, there is much better material available. Ok, when I read it is seemed very much like revisionist history. He contended that Russia losing so much ground during the initial invasion was all part of the "plan" as it were. Thanks for the response though I really appreciate it.
It isn't so much 'revisionist history' as it is a confirmation of a specific narrative crafted in the aftermath of the war in which Stalin was not responsible for the defeats of and but rather it was all part of a 'master plan', a la , to lure the Germans and then defeat them with an 'attrition' strategy. This has been widely enough disproven. Interesting, I didnt realize that Stalin crafted that narrative, though I suppose I am not surprised.
It was still a minor victory in that they managed to pull out most of their men. Sure, they lost the battle, but they saved their professional army. And during a war were nothing goes right, a minor victory like that could mean the difference between the government loosing confidence and a new election being called, and the government staying in power.
I agree with you, it's just that you can't called that a "victory", even minor, because it was a defeat. Managing a solid and efficient retreat doesn't make it a victory. But that is just semantics. You're talking about if Germany had occupied Great Britain, right? Just so I understand completely and can give you a proper answer. Guerilla warfare will eventually beat back germany right?
Well, Spain wouldn't be occupied. The only reason the French resistance had a way to strike back was because they were armed by the SOE. Now, Great Britain had the auxiliaries with hidden weapon depots inside the country in case of an occupation. It's always unwise to fight a guerilla war if you don't have a place you can retreat to where the enemy can't follow you.
In the case of Great Britain: Where would they get additional weapon and ammunition from? The question here is how long it would last. I am rather certain that if an occupation was underway then it would be quelled sooner or later. But a guerilla organisation can only succesfully be engaged if you can find an alternative.
Both for Russia and France. If Germany wanted to defeat a British insurgency without losing too much manpower then they would have to engage this on a economical and political level. If they could convince the British public that there could be something positive out of the occupation then the public support for the insurgency would dwell.
I doubt it. Looking at Iraq, the US only had around 35 casualties over an 8 year period. Even in Vietnam, where they had to deal with a regular army as well as guerrilla warfare, they only took casualties. Those sorts of casualties are not going to break the will of the Germans when they took 15 million casualties in 4 years on the Eastern front and continued fighting.
I would be surprised if they would leave with less than half a million casualties, which is far more than guerrilla warfare would be able to inflict. The German were not beaten back from any of these regions by guerrilla warfare. And oftentimes it loses by utterly failing to sway the government or the populace.
Sometimes the guerillas don't have the patience or the support to go on forever. If you follow the analyses of economists like Nial Ferguson on the countries involved in WWII an absolute Axis victory would have been pretty much impossible without some kind of huge change of the game that is to say, there are very few individual turning point, where had they gone differently, Germany could have won a total victory.
In this view even if they had somehow managed to defeat Britain and Russia, they would have been to economically exhausted to defeat the United States whose war production was pretty insane. Now if you just want a military run-down, there were a few fundamental flaws you'd have to correct for to give Germany a fighting chance. The most significant would be the decision to go to war with the Soviet Union.
Germany lost way more men and during that one campaign than they ever did fighting the allies. Without those millions of dead soldiers, it is possible they could have staged more successful attacks on Britain leading to total victory before the US entered the war, or more likely, a negotiated peace that would have simply recognized European and African territories the Axis had seized, after Britain had grown weary of fighting alone as Russia would not have entered the war.
If you assume Germany still does attack Russia, then there really isn't a way for them to gain total victory. Russia is huge, and they used their size to their advantage by packing up and moving essential factories to Siberia far away from the front where the Germans couldn't possibly reach them. Had the Germans managed to capture Moscow, The Soviets would likely have used the same strategy with there important government functions as well which they did when the city was evacuated as the Germans were getting close.
The territory was simply to vast to cover and there troops suffered too much attrition to Russian armies, weather, and then partisan activity behind their lines. According to a podcast I listened to on the eastern front German high command determined after the campaign that the only way this wouldn't have made the operation infeasible, would have been if the Nazi's had come to liberate the people of Eastern Europe from soviet control and allied with the partisans to help them break away from the Soviet Union.
If this had been tried they could have avoided a major source of attrition and maybe forced Russia in to some kind of peace agreement that also freed man of it's satellite states Ukraine, Byellorusia, etc. This ran counter to the Nazi ideology though and was thus never tried. Another possibility for a partial victory could have been if Germany had simply tried to negotiate peace with the Soviet Union just after Stalingrad.
It is very likely that given just how deep they were into Russian territory, they could have exacted some concessions by threatening to fortify their positions. Essentially saying, "You can give us these things and the war can be over tomorrow, or we can fortify and you'll have to lose millions more lives just to gain back your own lost territory, let alone strike at Germany".
Any other possible victory scenarios would have to be things like Hitler inventing the Atomic bomb and nuking places like London and Moscow. The war could have gone very differently if something like that had happened, but the German scientists were pursuing the wrong method for developing it, so that didn't happen. Total victory against all Allied powers would have been impossible, but a negotiated peace with German gains could have been, especially if they had avoided attacking Russia.
So the negotiated peace option might have possibly resulted in Germany consolidating its acquisitions. Was Hitler's personal hubris the main factor that kept them from going that route? Seems if they had had good intelligence about these countries capabilities, they'd tread lightly. Partly hubris, his ideology was very anti-Communist and anti-Slavic so to expect a negotiated peace settlement following a German failure to take Stalingrad seems a bit unlikely as he'd be seen as being at a position of weakness.
If they'd managed to grab the city and then offer terms I guess that's be more possible. Remember, most times when we look back at history or when we try to anticipate what others will do, we use the notion of the "rational actor. But people aren't always rational, I hope that history and current affairs shows that.
The rational actor theory doesn't do much to explain Hitler. He was rooted heavily and unflinchingly in his own ideology of cultural and racial superiority over the "Slavic hordes" and "decadent, degenerate democracies" that opposed him. This while a Nazi-Spock could've seen the infeasibility of a large-scale war with the USSR and the potential effects of American money and industry injected into the Allied cause, the ideologically blinded Hitler couldn't or just wouldn't see it.
I wouldn't say the hubris was only due to Hitler and his ideology. At the beginning of operation Barbarossa, most of the German command was on board with ridding the world of Bolshevism, and after how successful the initial invasion went many were estimating total victory in factors of months.
As the war dragged on, some Generals became more and more worried as attrition took it's toll, but it took a long while before the generals actually started believing total victory was impossible. Just because we see Stalingrad as the turning point now does not mean the Germans at the time did.
After losing much of that army in the battle, the Soviets had a much easier time just rolling back the German lines all the way to Berlin, because there was nowhere near enough manpower to stop them. It's worth considering whether or not Stalin would have gone for a negotiated peace under those conditions. I've not studied him extensively, but my sense is that he would have kept fighting if he was able to, which he would have been even if the Germans had dug in.
Very true. It is always a huge risk to go to war when you can only win by reducing the enemies will rather than capability to fight. If they just decide to not surrender, then you get screwed. The War of the World is his big work on the world wars although he does have another specifically related to WWI.
In it he supports the idea that with Germany failing an early knockout blow against any of the allies, it could not compete in a drawn out conflict against much more powerful economies. He also goes on to present the thesis that the world wars have doomed the West to decline.
I generally don't agree with most of his opinions regarding East-West conflict, especially since he tends toward Eurocentrism and the writing style is not very compelling, so I don't think I'd necessarily recommend reading the book. So I want to make clear that Niall does not have some kind of monopoly no pun on economic analysis of the WWII powers, he is just one of the people that supports the view.
A cool analysis along the same lines is here. One of the major issues with Nazi victory was the economic model involved in the Nazi war machine, it only was sustainable through constant conquest. Very briefly, they were asset strippers of conquered territories. The occupied countries were forced to sell goods at extremely low prices to German industries. This wasn't sustainable especially when the war moved to the east and little was returned in terms of economic advantage.
If they hadn't have gone east the exploitation of the conquered countries in the West wouldn't have been sustainable. Well put, it's easy to focus on Nazi military might without recognizing that the entire Nazi economy was basically an economic bubble. Without the influx of foreign capital from Austria and Czechoslovakia combined with what amounted to colonial practices in Southern Europe, the whole thing would have collapsed.
The Nazis built their economy like so many other tribes before them, dependent on looting and conquest. They had limited industrial capability. A country with limited resources limited when compared to, the entire planet they tried to take on. Additionally, they did not ever reach their peak because German women were never fully employed in factories, so half their population was under utilized, the other half male labourers were constantly drained by the needs of the Wermacht.
One of my favorite writers, although not necessarily a historian, is John Michael Greer. Here's a recent blog post entitled "America: He suggests that the early victories of Japan and Germany were the result of their being the first to recognize just how much the weapons of warfare had changed during the two previous decades. Consider the Blitzkreig strategy in Europe, and the Japanese reliance on air power.
Ultimately, the war was won by two powers, the US and the Soviet Union, who had access to far greater supplies of raw materials and, in particular, oil. To win the war, they would have had to conquer both of those powers. So I would say that once the US and Soviet Union caught up to Japan and Germany in terms of their ability to build a war machine, the war was lost.
It seems like the only way it could have gone different is if Germany had won Stalingrad, and had somehow been able to secure access to Black Sea oil. But I think it's uncertain that the Black Sea oil could have been secured. So from the perspective of war technology, Germany might have continued advancing into Britain, Suez, perhaps other places, but even if it had accomplished these things as FistofFacepalm points out in this post , it was still on a doomed collision course with at least the Soviets.
Anyone who actually studies the topic in depth knows that the nuances and variables are simply impossible to keep track of. But considering Hitler's ideology and to what extent it was intertwined with the way he waged war, he lost the Second World War before it began.
Interesting, can you explain why? Would it have been possible for ANY German ruler to win the war? Or would you say that a general European war of conquest was pretty much impossible to win? The latter. There is no way in heck any European could rule all of Europe, especially when Russia is thrown into the mix. It would take volumes to go into all the detail necessary to understanding that.
I would recommend you read Operation Barbarossa and Germany's defeat in the East to gain an in-depth understanding of Hitler's relationship to the general staff and what the reality of the war on the Eastern Front was actually like during the first few months, months that are often considered the most victorious of the entire German campaign in the east. Somewhat of a flawed question.
Hitler had reasons for waging war against the majority of Europe, what would 'any' German rule lean on to fight similar wars? But the more essential conflict seems to be Germany vs. If they had just left France and the Western front alone? Could that have ever happened, or was France just too emotionally appealing of a target? Even if they don't attack Russia, there will be a nuclear sunrise over the Reich come In the course of the last four months it has been made probable — through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America — that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated.
Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future. This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable — though much less certain — that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory.
However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by air. It was more a matter of it not being ready in time for the war in Europe. There wasn't complete certainty over when the bomb would be finished or when the war in Europe would end. Because if they never invaded the Soviet union, then the entire Nazi army would be waiting for the invasion, not just part of it.
So if the war managed to last 3 months longer and the Allied victory wasn't assured, or deemed to costly to continue on, we might be talking about the nuclear attacks on Nuremberg and Frankfort. If England fell, there would have been close to no way to deliver a nuclear bomb. Stuff like this. Yes, I read about that; a great success for the resistance. But that all would only have delayed the development of the nuclear bomb for Germany.
Another big problem was the wasting of a lot of materials on the development of weapons such as the V1 and V2 or the "Maus"-Tank, which weakened the mass production of more usable weapons. If Germany hadn't attacked Russia, Japan would have continued buying Russian steel and wouldn't have a need to attack Pearl Harbor, so USA wouldn't have gotten involved, and hadn't developed nukes..
But then there would still be the need for oil, which the Americans had cut off, and same with the rest of the European powers. Remember, one of the first targets the Japanese had was the Royal Dutch oil fields. The Japanese even ran out of oil for their navy during the war. The U. The executive order to be used to create the Manhattan Project was signed in June '41, four and a half months before Pearl Harbor.
It might have come later without the urgency, but it would have come, and from what we can tell, far before the Nazis would have developed it, if ever. Well, the nuclear program got sabotaged pretty badly. Strategic -- declaring war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. It was not inevitable that the United States would have declared war on Germany. Isolationism was very strong in the US at the time.
Even a delay in the US entry into the war might have led to victory in Africa and conquering the Suez Canal, which was an essential British naval and strategic logistical supply asset. This is to say nothing of the extra time that might have been gained delaying D-Day. Also, with America solely concentrating on the Pacific theatre, US logistical aid to the Soviets might have been lessened, making the Soviets easier to defeat.
These nations were of little immediate strategic value, but the delay meant the German advance to Moscow was stopped prematurely by Winter. This southeastern excursion also led to unnecessary loss of troops and materiel. Churchill particularly remarked on the decimation of German elite paratroopers in the taking of Crete.
Technological -- Driving away and allowing key nuclear scientists to escape to the West. Without a US nuclear bomb, or with it delayed, the war would have been much different. Even worse, consider if enough brain power could have been persuaded to stay and help make the German nuclear effort successful. Why was Germany split in World War 2? World war 1 was the result of German aggression.
The terms of the WW1 German surrender restricted future military action, and when Germany attempted to conquer Europe in WW2, it was in direct violation of the terms of that surrender. Folowing WW2, the Allied forces decided that it would … be best to prevent any future German attempts to attempt to take over Europe and eventually the world.
In general, it was decided to divide Germany into 3 parts in an effort to limit their abilities.. It was probably a good idea. What did Germany do in World War 2? They battled Britain. They were also on … the Axis side. This is all I know, so don't blame me if you did not get all the information you needed. I gave you what I know.
Whether it's things such as history notes, homework, or whatever, you may use my answers. Remember to use my answers, but not for fun and don't even think about giving them to a friend unless if you are in a group with them Full Answer share with friends Share to: How did Germany not win World War 1? They were at a complete stand still against France, Great Britain, and Russia.
Ok, so the Russians collapse on themselves because of a revolution into communism thanks to Lenin , but the Central Powers still had to deal wit … h France, Great Britain, and now coming into the war was the U. Essentially, you would think the Central Powers would be able to sue for some sort of negotiations in their favor because the Russian front collapsed, but both sides Allies and Central Powers were exhausting their forces, and Germany could not even budge the war in their favor; besides that, the Allies had developed the tank.
Germany knew that it was only a matter of time before they would loose, because the U. Germany knew that, that is why they sent the Zimmerman letter trying to get Mexico to attack the U. Japan would later try to slow us down with Pearl Harbor in WWII, but once again, the size and speed of our economy was too powerful. Today, we are concerned about an up and coming giant economy, China, but I feel that they too like the Soviet Union are not stable enough to survive what we have been doing since the end of WWII.
How was Germany after World War 2? After World War 2, Germany honestly didn't exist. Berlin itself was divided in the same fashion, which was one of the many causes of the Cold War. When did you win World War 2? Who did Germany annex in World War 2? Germany annexed the Polish and as well as Austria in World War 2. Austria was annexed by Germany on March 12, What Allies did Germany have in world war 2?
The first ally Germany gained was Italy, which was also ruled by an expansionist and militaristic fascist government. Germany allied with Japan later in the war. Eastern European nations such as Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria joined with Germany but were more considered puppets of Germany rather tha … n full allies.
When Germany invaded Yugoslavia, it created the Independent State of Croatia in the north, which was also a German puppet state. If it counts, Thailand was also an ally of Japan during the war. How did you win World War 2? You better thank Japan. If Japan never bombed Pearl Harbor than the Americans would never get angry at Japan and never would have joined the war, so basically, bottom line: We would have lost the war if America hadn't helped us out.
The war in England ended because England put stress on Hitler he was losing many wretched lifes of his comrades. So he took an overdose of pills he died instantly. Blame Germany World War 2? Yes because Germany invaded Poland and Hitler committed suicide so yes they should blame Germany No, no, no.
You can not blame a whole country for one mans mistakes. That's what Hitler did to the Jews, and that's what you're doing to the Germans. If you want someone to blame, blame Adolf Hit … ler. Blame Joseph Goebbels. Blame Hermann Goering. But not Germany. How did Germany prepare for World War 2? Hitler prepared for world war 2 by;.
Increasing Germany's military from , to other 3 million. Built more Tanks. Built more Guns and Antitank guns. Increase Germany's Navy. Built and Air Force. Making more jobs, Mostly on Military and Agricultural areas. Got woman to stay at home to raise their Young to be the future Nazi Generation.
Got Austria and the Sudetenland to increase Germany's living space and have more resources. Boosted Germany's Economy. Why how Win World War 2? The Axis Powers Germany, Japan, Italy were defeated by over-whelming amounts of allied men and equipment. The US produced more aircraft, warships, merchant ships, tanks, small arms, and ammunition than all of the allies and axis powers combined..
The Axis Forces ran out of men and equipment. Why didn't Germany win in world war 2? Germany's bid to win World War II was thwarted for several reasons. Primarily, its industrial might, and thus its war-making capacity,was no match for the combined industrial and military might of itsopponents.
Also significant was its defeat in the battles ofespionage and technology, where the Allie … s held significantadvantages over Germany and its allies. Finally, the Germanleadership became greedy and careless both, thereby over-stretchingits well-trained, highly effective army to such an extent that itwas damaged beyond repair at the middle point of the war.
Most Germans accept that Germany caused World War 2 in Europe and acknowledge - in fact, are acutely aware - that the Holocaust was committed by soldiers in German uniform acting for and on behalf of the German Reich.. Quite a number of Germans also take the view that the German government and gene … ral staff in was largely responsible for the outbreak of World War 1.
Since about this has been widely regarded as a fact, and the ongoing controversies about the causes of World War 1 have largely been ignored.. On a different level, pacificism is widespread in Germany, and even among those who are not pacifists, there is no desire for military adventures.. The former West Germany paid compensation of various kinds to surviving victims of Nazi persecution and, more controversially, to Israel..
Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, Jews from the various former Soviet republics have been admitted in significant numbers to Germany, and on relatively easy terms. What does Germany have to do with World War 2? Hitler started the second world war as a way of coming out of economical depression. It also shadowed the genocidal war waged by Hitler against other races other then Nordic German Aryans share with friends Share to: Germany out of World War 2?
Germany got out of WWII by being conquered. Germany was surrounded by the Allied powers USA, Britain with … commonwealth and France to the west from and the Soviet Union to the east approaching since In the Allies had taken back North Africa and had began to invade Italy and pressed on the Germans ally Italy, until the Italian opposition overthrew and arrested Mussolini.
Although there was an Italian puppet government in northern Italy relying on Germany for defense which weren't beaten until In the western Allies invaded Normandy and liberated France from the Germans. From Germany's economy had suffered a lot form allied bombing and could no produce enough machines and weapons to fight a war against the world's super powers anymore, and losing oil supplies led to fuel shortage.
Qualified military leaders thought that there was no hope anymore, and tried to get rid of Hitler, resulting in Hitler dismissing many and taking more control himself, with much less military knowledge. Hess had alone tried to negotiate peace with Britain. Despite having initial success the Germans were defeated and the lines returned to normal.
Meanwhile on the eastern front the Soviets were advancing closer and closer to Germany. In late April and early May the final campaigns of the western theatres of war were concluded. Local troops could continue in skirmishes for a few days, not being aware of the peace announced. Germany was brought to ruins, occupied by the allies and divided into East and West Germany.
Especially the eastern Germans suffered retaliation by the Red Army for the Barbarossa campaign, with rapes etc. Those under Soviet control had to accept communist rule until , and confiscation of valuables that were found. Many of the intelligentsia and brilliant scientists had escaped from the country, especially Jews, leading to lack of compentence.
Germany had to pay a compensation to Jews affected by their genocide efforts. Germans and the German language were disliked by many, losing its previously major importance for some time. Internal resentment between former Nazis and the oppositional. Most cities and infrastructure were in ruins after massive air bombardment. Economy was in ruins after using massive resources for war.
Borders were moved and lots of families were displaced, and basically homeless. Over 5 million people had perished, and many kids were orphans, roaming in the cities looking for food. Disease thrived. The German people depended on human aid from the allies and camps for displaced people were set up, harbouring 7 million people as most. Many German men were kept in Soviet camps for years, and there was a lack of work force.
Germany became a central scene for the cold war, with the blockade of Berlin and placement of much armament. Wise from WWI the allies supported a build-up instead of a humiliating punishment of the country, so two decades after the war economy had bloomed again. Did England and France underestimate Germany in World War 2 when they declared war on them because they both came so very close to defeat?
England was surrounded by the channel and France had the Marginot Line both thought to be impenetrable from land sea and air. Who wins World War 2? How would Germany have been able to win World War 2? German troops were controlling several fronts. Troops were spread very thin and often unrested and under supplied. If Hitler would have withdrawn slightly fortified his fronts and held his ground, the war would have lasted a lot longer and probably would have been in favor of the Reich.
It's reall … y a question that can't fully be answered. However several things could have been done differently. Perhaps purporting the ideal of Germany and America as friends. More German u-boats in the pacific allowing oil to pass freely to japan could have prevented the pearl harbor attacks and in turn caused Japan to send its troops to the European front, turning the course of the war.
Many things could have gone differently. The one thing that should have happened is that the President should have listened to Patton's suggestions to rebuild Nazi Germany and it's military and preemptively strike Russia, It's to bad they didn't, Patton liked and admired the Germans for good reason. Crushing communism there would have prevented a LOT of the garbage we deal with today, not to mention the nuclear weapon stock pile and stolen nuclear arms wouldn't be near the problem it is today.
I think if they would have listened to Patton the world would be a much better place today. However that's just this guys humble opinion. Was Germany involved with world war 2 if no. Germany was the main cause of WWII! Does the name Adolf Hitler ring a bell? Under him they were lead and WWII and the slaughter of like 6 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and disabled people happened.
Where did Germany get the money for World War 2? You're asking where did germany get all the money? Germany obviously had allies. He got the money from allies and other nations. To keep the momentum of the war going Hitler pillaged other countries of their valuables.
Also hitlre used concentration camps for cheap labor. If japan and Germany had fought world war 2 who would win? They were in World War 2. They were the Axis Powers but if theyface each other I would have to say German. They had excellentwarfare, weapons, and soldiers.
Did Germany or Europe win world war 2?
In the path of Germany's armies were towns that were burnt down prior to their arrival. The allied forces also sought to put an end to Germany's allies, primarily Russia and Japan, that fought with the Germans and conducted their own attacks against the United States and Europe. When he attacked Russia though, he gave the western forces time to regroup and and start a counterinvasion, meanwhile the US joined the war, and the German army was stuck in Russia, not having been able to conquer Russia as hoped seems they didn't learn from Napoleon.
How Did the Nazis Really Lose World War II?:
- What did the Nazis had to do with Poland in World War 2?
- It was also prone to mechanical malfunction, difficult to sustain in combat and needed a lot of fuel, one of the many resources Germany sorely lacked.
- Free webcam chat porn
- I think if they would have listened to Patton the world would be a much better place today.
- Which World War 2 Nazis worked in japan?
- Sahara sands pornstar profile videos and pictures
- Beautiful big tits babe sonia loves the taste of cum
- darling actually ii to winning very war close world was hitler Damn right do
- The war in England ended because England put stress on Hitler he was losing many wretched lifes of his comrades.