Could Germany have won WWII?

[boarwild]

If you read RHS Stolfi's Hitler's Panzers East, he makes the argument (quite convincingly) that had not Hitler redirected his armored units south into Ukraine in July/August 1941 and taken Moscow as planned, he could have effectively taken the Soviet Union out of the war. England & the US would have seen Stalin as effectively beaten and would have husbanded their war material instead of shipping it overseas.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you read RHS Stolfi's Hitler's Panzers East, he makes the argument (quite convincingly) that had not Hitler redirected his armored units south into Ukraine in July/August 1941 and taken Moscow as planned, he could have effectively taken the Soviet Union out of the war. England & the US would have seen Stalin as effectively beaten and would have husbanded their war material instead of shipping it overseas.

Its a great read. Stolfi acknowledges that it still might have come up a bit short -- the logistics/tank recovery teams might have pulled it off but it would've been close. But Guderian was correct and OKH and Hitler wrong. They needed to have kept up the skeer and didn't. That was the one chance for victory.

'damascus:
Had the USA never been involved in Europe aside from the Lend Lease we supplied before the end of 1942, Germany would still have lost. After the last quarter of 1941, The USSR could have beaten them even had England sued for peace. Stalin and Beria were willing to kill 40 million Russians to win -- say what you will about them being monsters, you cannot fault their resolve -- and Germany never had the wherewithal to land a killing blow after the first Winter. Absent the USA and absent Britain, the USSR may not have won until 1949 or 1950, but eventually they would have. Like Gelcube notes above, the economics of the thing meant that anything that didn't result in a decisive win for Germany in the opening year translated as an eventual -- however Pyrrhic -- victory for the CCCP.

[ReluctantSamurai]

had not Hitler redirected his armored units south into Ukraine in July/August 1941 and taken Moscow as planned, he could have effectively taken the Soviet Union out of the war.

Not likely. Stolfi never took the time to do the logistical calculations for what the Germans could throw at Moscow in July/August. At best, considering the rail repair and re-gauging time, and a brief halt to regroup after all of the furious Soviet counter-attacks against AGC, the Germans could have mustered about 20-30 divisions according to the Quartermaster General Wagner (and this if the Germans suspended all advances on the other fronts).

Let me quote you some numbers in the chapter entitled "Russian Roulette" from Martin van Creveld's book called "Supplying War":

"From the middle of July, the supply situation of Army Group Center was developing signs of schizophrenia. On the one hand Wagner [the Quartermaster General] and Halder [OKH Chief of Staff] were aware of some 'strain', but nevertheless confident of their ability to build up a new supply basis on the Dnieper, from which further operations were to be launched at the end of the month. They appeared not to hear the loud cries of help from the armies. The consumption of ammunition throughout this period was very high, and could be met only-if at all- by means of a drastic curtailment in the supply of fuel and subsistence. 9th Army was fighting around Smolensk, but its nearest railhead was still at Polotsk [a distance of 250 miles]-and this at a time when a basic load of fuel lasted for only 25-30 miles instead of the regulation 65 miles. Around the middle of August, both 9th and 2nd Army were living from hand to mouth, with stocks of ammunition still falling instead of rising in preparation for a new offensive."

Not a very nice situation to begin a major offensive with a city of over 2 million residents at the end of it. And if the strong forces present in the Kiev district are not eliminated, the Germans now have a very long, exposed flank with the majority of available Soviet armor sitting poised for a counter-attack from the south.

And of course everyone assumes that if Moscow falls, the Soviets automatically throw in the towel, which certainly isn't the case considering that a large chunk of their weapons and munition producing areas are completely out of reach of the Germans.

Oh, and this statement sums it all up pretty succinctly considering all the discussion of this type I've been involved with:

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

[Sp4]

'damascus:
Had the USA never been involved in Europe aside from the Lend Lease we supplied before the end of 1942, Germany would still have lost. After the last quarter of 1941, The USSR could have beaten them even had England sued for peace. Stalin and Beria were willing to kill 40 million Russians to win -- say what you will about them being monsters, you cannot fault their resolve -- and Germany never had the wherewithal to land a killing blow after the first Winter. Absent the USA and absent Britain, the USSR may not have won until 1949 or 1950, but eventually they would have. Like Gelcube notes above, the economics of the thing meant that anything that didn't result in a decisive win for Germany in the opening year translated as an eventual -- however Pyrrhic -- victory for the CCCP.

What about nuclear weapons?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Soviets were closer to a bomb than the Germans ever were. We still don't know who the mole(s?) in the Manhattan Project was.

We learned a lot about their penetration of the project post 1991. The answer is that Fuchs and others had the US/UK effort fairly well penetrated. Didn't mean the Russians could just read our mail and create their own nukes overnight, but they did spool it up quickly despite much tougher quality/science base hurdles. And you are right, GC, the Germans --despite a higher science and quality base than the Soviets -- were several steps behind.


Sp4

Atomic weapons were, to put it kindly, a craft industry at the time. We might have reached a 10/month production level by mid-1946. Would that have been enough of a "hammer" to force a German surrender? Remember, they had endured 1,000 plane raids and fire-bombing infernos on several occasions during the war and their resolve had not faltered.

Tactically, the atomic bombs were devastating to whatever they hit, wiping out all structures that were not especially hardened within a 1 mile radius of the blast and doing sever to significant blast damage (and follow on fire) to anything within a 3 mile radius. However, their accuracy was no more pinpoint than any other air-dropped dumb bomb of that era and the deploying plane had to drop the weapon from a height of 30k feet. This limits effective deployment to fairly large, relatively slow moving or stationary targets. Limited counter-force ability, mostly a counter-value weapon (city killer) At the time, the Germans were better than anyone around in developing and using hardened facilities and dispersed production etc. (Albert Speer was effective, the rat). The Heer was as good as anyone in that era at ducking air-operations against its forces and continuing to fight effectively, and -- assuming the war with the CCCP had succeeded -- the Luftwaffe would have been far more capable of defending against the US/UK air forces than it historically was. Allied air superiority was likely, but not the air supremacy that was enjoyed for the a-bomb missions. Effective use of the bombs against active opposition would be decidedly more difficult.

Finally, there are real questions as to the willingness of public opinion to support a bombing campaign of that nature. Unlike with Japan, there would have been a deluge of pictures available through Sweden and Switzerland that may have swayed public opinion. Sadly, given attitudes at the time, there was less concern over the use of these weapons on "the Japs." Would the same harsh attitude of vengeance have prevailed in employing the weapons against German and other European targets? A somewhat harder question to answer.

[AntiDamascus]

I'm not sure the Germans were viewed in a much better light by the time the war was winding down.

[Brenus]

The answer to this question is in the German Plan. The Plan was to destroy the Russian Armies at the borders, to stop them to retreat and to re-group. Barbarossa failed in this aspect, so the all concept of the Victory for Germany, swift and decisive failed. All the later offensives were just a hope that a new push will finally destroy the Red Army.

“Pz 4 was designed before the Germans faced the T-34 and KV.” : “Work on the Panzer IV began in 1934 when Rheinmettal-Borsig, Krupp and MAN each produced a design under the codename Bataillonsführerwagen (battalion commander’s vehicle), or BW. The Krupp design (VK2001/K) won the design contest, although the original six-wheeled interleaved suspension was eventually replaced by an eight wheeled leaf-spring double bogie system. The resulting tank closely resembled the Panzer III – the Panzer IV Ausf A was actually shorter than the Panzer III Ausf A, although it was wider and taller. By the time the Panzer III design settled down with the Ausf E the Panzer IV was longer and taller, but the same width. What it did have was a bigger turret ring, which would later allow it to carry heavier guns than the Panzer III.”
From Http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...panzer_IV.html

You are technically right. However the 75 mm long barrel was an answer to the T34/KV. And the PZ V "Panther" was still an answer to the T34.