Could Germany have won WWII?

[Papewaio]

Hitler surrounded the English army on the atlantic coast and could have captured/massacred them. Instead, he let them go, to show a gesture of good faith to Churchill, who then insisted that the war continued.

Hitler wasn't trying to give a gesture of good will. He was stalled by the French army who valiantly fought the Germans to a stand still and made sure the British could retreat in good order.

The fact that the British could retreat was because they still ruled the Channel and at least the fear of their fleet kept the Germans at bay. That the British people helped the British army retreat speaks to how tenacious the people were. An flotilla of small personal boats and yachts helped rescue the men from the beaches.

One of my great uncles was at both Dunkirk and Normandy. So I've had second hand accounts of it growing up from my mother.

[Fisherking]

Hitler wasn't trying to give a gesture of good will. He was stalled by the French army who valiantly fought the Germans to a stand still and made sure the British could retreat in good order.

The fact that the British could retreat was because they still ruled the Channel and at least the fear of their fleet kept the Germans at bay. That the British people helped the British army retreat speaks to how tenacious the people were. An flotilla of small personal boats and yachts helped rescue the men from the beaches.

One of my great uncles was at both Dunkirk and Normandy. So I've had second hand accounts of it growing up from my mother.

I think it was a little of both.

The attack on Dunkirk was halted for several days. I think, in part because Hitler had never wanted war with the UK and admired them. It was Hitler who ordered the battle halted, and then resumed.

It is very conflicted. At any rate, the Germans stopped the attack for three days and allowed a defensive perimeter to be established and the evacuation to be organized, allowing something of around 338,000 allied troops to escape. The entire battle lasted 11 days and it was the French defense that allowed the British time to evacuate, as well as that three day pause in the battle. Had the attack been pressed it would have been an even greater disaster for them.

[Sp4]

Germany was rebuilt after the war, which was mostly made possible by the US and whoever else paid for the Marshall plan (It's been a while since I did this in school, so I can't remember if it was just US)

The way WW2 went, Germany could not have won it. There are a lot of reasons for that, one of the biggest was probably that the country wasn't prepared for the war to get as big or last as long as it did.
Could Germany have won WW2 if WW2 went differently? Who knows? What was Hitler trying to win? What was the idea he had for the country, or empire rather. The better question would probably be whether Germany could have realised his ideas and plans.

[Brenus]

“The attack on Dunkirk was halted for several days.” Not really. Goering and Hitler though that the Luftwaffe could do the job. Even today, we have people over-estimating Air-power… And even if the English would have lost the BEF, it was “only” hundreds of thousand soldiers. More important, they lost all the heavy material, which was a blessing as their tanks were under gunned and too slow.

As the question of the French tanks, they were better than most of the Germans tanks. The German had a better tactic and were trained to be aggressive. They trained for years, when France was very reluctant to go for other slaughter. Unfortunately, the several French Governments (and UK) couldn’t believe that a leader in Europe would go for another one…
But, the reality is that the Germans answered to the Russian Tanks. The Pz IV was the early answer to the T34 and KV. Then they developed the Panther, then the Tiger. But the T34 evolved as well, and in term of innovation, the T34 with the slope armour and large caterpillars were more ahead than the Germans tanks.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_DnRn9hyFU

They might've, but it would've required Nazi Germany to act like not-Nazi-Germany.

The Pz IV was the early answer to the T34 and KV.

Well, the up-armament projects were the answer, but the Pz 4 was designed before the Germans faced the T-34 and KV.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Could Germany have won? Yes. The odds against Germany were pretty steep though.


With Major Shifts from History
An easy win would have required several major alterations of history including a war production board aligning Germany's economy for war; a greater emphasis on motorization and logistical transport/tank recovery units; discarding the use of naval surface vessels past those needed for service strictly in the Baltic so as to greatly increase the numbers of submarines and reprovisioning submarines available; a far greater effort to neutralize/conquer Gibraltar and Malta; A greater willingness to turn the panzer spearheads loose without worrying about their flanks so as to multiply the speed/shock impact; and under no circumstances declare war against the USA until after they have declared war on you. Just a few minor things.....


Without
Absent major changes from what happened, it is possible, though still a bit unlikely, that Germany might have punched through to Moscow -- with it's attendant destruction of a big slice of Soviet heavy industry and their rail infrastructure -- had the Germans followed the conquest of Smolensk with short operational pause and a direct strike at the Soviet capitol (beginning c. 15 Sep not 2 Oct). Would have been tough going logistically, but might have brought Stalin's regime down and/or shattered the entire front as the rail network went down for everything North of Vorozneh [sic?]. Apparently, Sep/Oct of '41 was the only time the Russians were truly on the brink of an outright collapse. The Caucuses campaign in '42 was hard on the Soviets, but never brought them to the brink of collapse.

And yes, ultimately, it all hinged on Russia. Had Germany won there it would have been almost impossible for the USA/UK to retake Europe. With Atomic weapons years away -- and some worried it was many years yet at the time -- it is arguable that some form of peace deal could have been made that left Germany in charge of pretty much all of Europe East of the Rhine.

[Montmorency]

Aside from "everything going right in just the right ways", a few of the more critical changes:

*Taking Moscow and killing/capturing Stalin (who refused to evacuate, historically)
*"Liberating" the Western Republics, including Ukraine, and assimilating/accomodating them politically and socially so as to maximize both long-term resource extraction and collaboration while minimizing the partisan threat and thus required security presence and logistical instability
*Not doing that thing with the Jews and Gypsies, and rather using their patriotism, technical knowledge, and manpower toward the war effort
*Taking Baku and rapidly restoring at least 10% of production
*Going HOI3-style and mobilizing the full war-economy from the beginning
*Keeping Hitler away from Operations
*Not getting involved in Yugoslavia and Greece; this factor is usually underestimated for its contribution to the ultimate failure of the Eastern Campaign
*Abandoning the North African campaign from the beginning as a logistical trap

Oh, and maybe getting Japan heavily involved in Pacific Russia. This would have been militarily and economically ineffectual against the USSR overall, but may just have kept the Japanese busy enough to avert Pearl Harbor.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

IIRC, Soviet Industry was already on its way east of the Urals by the time the attack on Moscow stalled. Had the Germans taken Moscow and kept the momentum up against the Russians, I think they would still have had to create a defensive line at some point for the winter. Perhaps the allies wind up pumping all their resources into russia from the east, perhaps Japan even manages to make that incredibly difficult for a time, but I think eventually the Germans are still overcome by logistical inequalities. The Nazi's weren't exactly getting the most bang for their buck from occupied land, so unless the Germans drive all the way to the Pacific there's just no way. Eventually they get bogged down in Russia somewhere, and momentum takes over.

The only way Germany wins is if they somehow avoid war with Russia. It is crazy to think that ideology and an over-abundance of hateful enthusiasm is what doomed the German war-machine. In more rational hands than the Nazis, they may have won control of most of Europe and retained it to this day.

Soviet industry was on its way east, with some 1500 critical factories (12% of weapons manufacturing) moved East (the Germans trashed/captured over 30k factories of various kinds). While production resumed at the Ural "shadow" facilities as quickly as early December 1941, pre-invasion production levels were not reached until March/April -- and then rapidly surpassed as efforts continued. In terms of material, the window for German victory was the final quarter of 1941.

Punching through to Moscow, especially if it ended up killing Stalin and/or Beria, would have been a decapitation blow. It is arguable that the Soviets might have sought terms. There are even suggestions that Stalin would actually have evacuated and then sought terms (while building for revenge later). At a minimum, the Soviet counter offensive would have been far more limited as, without the rail nexus of Moscow, rapidly slotting in all of the Eastern forces would have been a far more difficult task.

Absent the Soviets suing for peace after a catastrophic shock, there was little or no chance for Germany to win. As you rightly said, the logistics/ecomics were not there. Only the last four months of 1941 were a potential window for victory and only if Moscow fell before December, and preferably with a dead Stalin.


However, I disagree with you as to "avoid war with Russia." Part of the reason for the success of Barbarossa is the extensive forward deployment of Soviet forces and the preponderance of forces south of the Pripyet marshes. A number of writers have argued that, without Barbarossa, Hitler goes to war in mid-1942 to counter the Soviet invasion of Rumania and Bulgaria. In short, the war against Russia was likely inevitable, only the particulars would have been altered.