Could Germany have won WWII?

[The Lurker Below]

They seldom do in board gaming either - http://axisandalliesworldclub.net/MatchLog.asp

So far in October the allies have a commanding 99 to 61 lead over the axis.

[PanzerJaeger]

Germany could have won the war up to and including the battle of Kursk had the military leadership been given the operational flexibility to maneuver and react to battlefield conditions. The Soviets were never as strong as their numbers implied, and Allied performance in North Africa, Normandy, Italy, Market Garden, and the Battle of the Bulge strongly suggests that they would not have fared well against first-line German military units; the vast majority of which were in Russia throughout the war. That's not to say that had Hitler not constantly stymied his generals, Germany would have mopped up the Allies with little issue. The likelihood of success that late in the game would be slim, but I can envision a path to victory via large scale envelopments of Soviet spearheads such as those executed during the 2nd and 3rd Battles of Kharkov. The Russian manpower/supply situation was not endless, and I do not believe they could have sustained another season of enormous losses any more than the German forces could after Bagration. If Stalin could have been made to sue for peace or effectively marginalized - which, again, I believe would have been possible but not likely in '43 - the Allies would have been cake.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Germany could have won the war up to and including the battle of Kursk

If Stalin could have been made to sue for peace or effectively marginalized - which, again, I believe would have been possible but not likely in '43

The best Germany could ever hope for by Kursk, was a stalemate. I would like to see some sort of plan that even remotely gives them a chance to win, by that time......

Allied performance in North Africa, Normandy, Italy, Market Garden, and the Battle of the Bulge strongly suggests that they would not have fared well against first-line German military units

A rather harsh and decidedly untrue statement. The Eastern Front, while it certainly attracted a much higher total number of German units, doesn't automatically qualify that theatre of operations as having the 'vast majority' of first-line units.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Germany could have won the war up to and including the battle of Kursk had the military leadership been given the operational flexibility to maneuver and react to battlefield conditions. The Soviets were never as strong as their numbers implied, and Allied performance in North Africa, Normandy, Italy, Market Garden, and the Battle of the Bulge strongly suggests that they would not have fared well against first-line German military units; the vast majority of which were in Russia throughout the war. That's not to say that had Hitler not constantly stymied his generals, Germany would have mopped up the Allies with little issue. The likelihood of success that late in the game would be slim, but I can envision a path to victory via large scale envelopments of Soviet spearheads such as those executed during the 2nd and 3rd Battles of Kharkov. The Russian manpower/supply situation was not endless, and I do not believe they could have sustained another season of enormous losses any more than the German forces could after Bagration. If Stalin could have been made to sue for peace or effectively marginalized - which, again, I believe would have been possible but not likely in '43 - the Allies would have been cake.

It is a certainty that, by 1943 if not earlier, Hitler was far more debilitating to German war efforts and there is no doubt that Germany's performance could have been more effective absent his "leadership." So, I suppose Citadel (or something at about the same time frame) succeeding might have engendered enough casualty through encirclement that Stalin asked for a cease-fire (might have been labeled peace but would have only been a cease fire for rebuilding in practice). I really doubt it though. The numbers simply do not line up.

It is possible that I am overestimating Soviet abilities and will for the 1942 season. I don't think that campaign ever carried the potential for a kill blow as did the one in 1941, but I can understand how you make that argument. With Hitler NOT involved beyond the grand strategic level and with Speer active before 1943, it is certain that Germany would have been more dangerous.

I believe that you are both correct and wrong as to the manpower situation though. Postwar analysis reveals that approximately 1 in every 7 Soviets died during the conflict. Russia's population and growth numbers have literally never recovered from that calamity. By any rational measure, you are therefore correct that the Sovs were far closer to the "bottom of the barrel" on manpower than they seemed to be at the time. On the other hand, Stalin was at the helm. He truly had a Total War Game Series AI view of his own casualties and, I believe, had it required 1 in every 4 Russians/Soviets, that Stalin would still have prosecuted the war in much the same fashion. In other words, he would not have reacted rationally to the casualties level as we of the West would define rational.