Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

[Randomizer]

I am at a loss as to why any thinking person in the 21st Century would be developing fantasy scenarios for Nazi victories.  But that's just me...
 
Best Regards.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain

My View is Germany could have beaten USSR only and if only they had forced Britain to terms and so not been doomed in a two front war

Even through Britain was pretty much out of it after the collapse of France, once USA entered war...Britain was an island where the forces could build up on...
which brings another blunder... Hitlers declaring war on USA rendered it unnecessary for roosvelt to push for a declaration on germany.

If Hitler had not been insane... he would not have declared... that would have had roosvelt trying declare on germany when it was japan that had attacked the USA proper, I doubt congress would have declared on germany in face of japans bombing, the hue and cry would been to war on japan and forget europe
with germany having NOT declared on USA.

There wouldn't been a germany first...there would been a Japan ONLY war effort...as far as britain...working with them in pacific..

If There had been no entry of USA vs Germany...if it were USA-Japan only... Britain might have ended up deciding that Hitler  couldn't be removed from europe and made an accomodation...especially if Churchillsgovt had fallen.

With free reign to fight a ONE FRONT war only...germany would have had the  aility to have at the least over run USSR to the Urals...

At that point resuming japan still  had its way in Pacific with USA still gearing up,   USSR would have had to move assets from pacific areas to urals... and Japan could have moved against USSR in the pacific... its Navy was basically what fought USA...most of its army was in china, Burma and manchuka..
a weakened...weakening USSR especially one that loses moscow and all West of Urals...  would have had japans army
hungry especially for the resources in pacific USSR..

That would have surely triggered a collapse of USSR into bits and pieces....

THEN the USA would have started worrying of Germany especially if without allied bombing of Reich their jet and rocketry progressed..

Hitlers blunders.attking and a 2 front war while britain was uncowed...declaring war on USA needlessly...
and japan not attking USSR...doomed Germany...

A sane and capable German leader would not have done such

I personally don't believe that. I think war with germany, for the USA, was inevitable. Within 2 months, germany would have had a DoW from them if germany didn't DoW on them first. The USA couold get away with neutrality until they were attacked, but once they were attacked, there was no reason to sit back and let europe stay nazi, perhaps even lose England, or the other alternative was all of europe (except england perhaps) becoming Red. Japan and germany being allies didn't help the USA staying neutral with germany very likely either. The fact that the USA was already helping england to a considerable degree before 12/7/41, put them technically at war with germany anyway, but each side kept ignoring the uboat sinkings and help the british were getting. If the USA had really stayed neutral, then perhaps Hitler wouldn't had declared war. The USA was doing all it could to get involved in the european war and still be looked at by some as neutral. I'm not sure if Hitler wanted to show the japanese friendship by honoring their pact as more of a motivation than the USA getting him angry. That's why I say the USA would had declared war pretty soon, because they were practically at war with germany as it was anyway. Even if Japan didn't attack, germany might had still resorted to a DoW with the USA at some point, simply because they weren't behaving very neutral and if time progressed it would probably only got worse. I guess if Japan didn't attack, maybe Hitler was waiting on reports that the USA had actually put armies in england before he would DoW.

[sullafelix]

Well nothing I have writen is something that I'm just pulling out of my hat. They were all suggestions that were in the minds of the major players at the time or was brought up to them verbally or in memo form.
 
This is also a gaming forum and not a history one. If Gary Grigsby's new game was advertised as " you can play the Germans but you will lose no matter what you do ". I don't think it will get many buyers. I and we have just brought up historical possibilities that luckily did not happen.
 
My honest military opinion is if Manstein was given a free hand in 1943, and there was a lot of talking with people trying to make him the army head at that time, he could have bled the Soviets dry and forced a separate peace.

[stuman]

No.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

I am at a loss as to why any thinking person in the 21st Century would be developing fantasy scenarios for Nazi victories.  But that's just me...

Best Regards.

Well, you could start a thread to discuss how the Alied powers could have avoided bungling the war for so long. After all, they did have overwhelming advantages in every category.

Its all interesting-but that's just me.

[sol_invictus]

Of course all of these suggestions have assumed that Germany invaded Russia simply on Hitler's whim. It was assumed by Hitler and quite a few other people that war between Germany and Russia was inevitable and that Germany needed to strike while the iron was hot. It was assumed in Germany that Stalin was only playing nice and throwing resources at Germany to buy time for Russia to prepare for the inevitable war. Stalin was a bit too clever since he assumed that the western powers would bleed themselves while Russia built up its strength so as to come in afterwards and reap the spoils. Stalin was horrified by the swift German victories in the west.

In hindsight; assuming the German operations in the Balkans; it would have been better for Germany to have postponed the invasion of Russia by a year and conclude the war with Britain or at least to severly weaken their position as much as possible. Hitler should have given Franco whatever he demanded for German access to Gibraltar. With Britain's easy access to the Med blocked Italy's situation would have eased quite a bit and Egypt in dire peril. After this disaster the British government may have sought a deal. If not, at least the situation in the west could have been stabilized in preparation for next year's Russian invasion.

This is assuming of course that the Battle of Britain didn't occur and that Germany didn't declare war against the US. Germany could have then launced its invasion of Russia in '42 earlier in the year as soon as the wet season was over and could have captured Moscow. At that point a reasonable peace offer could have been extended. If no agreement could be reached then a second years campaign could have seized Leningrad and the oil fields. I am fairly sure that Stalin either would have been removed after this or he would have made a deal as long as Hitler was willing to be reasonable.

So I guess that many of us can agree that if Hitler were not Hitler then it was certainly a possibility that Germany could have pulled it off.

[SeaMonkey]

Now all we need is a game that can accurately portray this possibility with extensive diplomatic and military events based on the players' decisions.  One that, given an indefinite execution of variables by both sides, can lead to a configuration where the Axis dominate the Eastern Hemisphere and the Allies the western.  Could this be construed as an Axis victory?
 
And then......????

[Lützow]

There are several theoretical scenarios I can think of. Considering the Hitler assassinate succeeded and Roosevelt/Churchill accepted a particular capitulation, we could have send all our troops to eastern front and enforce a stalemate there. Another possibility had been, if scientists as Heisenberg and Hahn accomplished the German nuclear bomb in due time. Afaik in the end it did merely rely on the lack of 'Schweres Wasser'.

[DuckofTindalos]

Good Grief...[8|]

[Helpless]

I am at a loss as to why any thinking person in the 21st Century would be developing fantasy scenarios for Nazi victories. But that's just me...

Best Regards.

Quoted for truth.

Of cause it is matter of taste, but it's all reminds me a "bored cat occupation" [:)]

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

I am at a loss as to why any thinking person in the 21st Century would be developing fantasy scenarios for Nazi victories.  But that's just me...

Best Regards.

The original impetus of this thread was a discussion in GG's War in the East forum where some of us were trying to come up with what the victory conditions would be appropriate for the game. Apparently the creators have not yet come up with the victory conditions for the grand campaign so the thread turned into a suggestion thread where it was originally a question.

My take on things was that any set of victory conditions whereby the German player "wins" would be complete fantasy. Germany was doomed to lose from the start. However, since victory is going to necessarily be some arbitrary confabulation I was in favor of giving the German player victory if he takes Moscow in the first year of the war or if he holds the Soviets from taking Berlin by a certain deadline in the last year. Of course these are purely artificial goals just to make a game out of it but since the game is supposed to be realistic and because my conclusion was the Germans couldn't possibly win IRL, I figured my victory conditions were no more fantasy than Germany conquering the USSR.

Some people responded to the thread that defeat for the Germans was not necessarily a foregone conclusion so I thought I'd bring the topic up in the general forums since it was getting a little OT for the WitE discussion. Any insight gained here may be grist for the discussion of victory conditions for WitE.

[06 Maestro]

Ah, Gary. This can become even a more hotly disputed subject than the actual historical possibilities.[;)]

There are the two opposing views; to win, one must actually win-or to win, one must simply do better than was the historical outcome.

I prefer the latter.

Although I do not agree that Germany was doomed to loose (at least not before Dec '41), the odds are heavily against it to triumph. So, if a game is to accurately depict a situation where one side is not able to achieve total victory overall, then there needs to be some method to decide on victory other than total victory. How to achieve these marginal victories criteria will be a fun subject-enjoy.

[Mike Parker]

I think what Gary is getting at though Maestro is that if one is to have a game, many folks that play this game would like to have a fair metric for determining a victor.
 
Games such as Chess for example are perfectly balanced, with only an advantage to the white side by virtue of the first move.  In that game, it is very fair to say the victor is the one that checkmates the opposing king, and of course there are many draw possibilities.  It is further helped by the tonnes of historical data showing what the effect is of white's first move vis a vis probability of winning this fair game.
 
Now a game of WWII on the eastern front that is even giving lip service to history just plain won't be fair.  It would be foolhardy to then try and have your victory conditions for it be beating the opposing side into submission, as we know this is HIGHLY unlikely for the Axis to achieve, while not too unlikely for the Soviets.  We also should not count on any sort of historicity factor for such a game like we have in chess either, since well chess has a very accurate rating system to gauge skill level, and matches between said rated opponents that have them alternating sides.  It is unlikely any game we design would achieve such rigorous data in the lifetime of the game (not impossible just unlikely) so its not likely we could come up with something that said the Axis win 4.75% of the time and the Soviets 95.25%.
 
So what we do is postulate what goals to set for each side.  Ideally those goals are set so that two players that are both competent and equally skilled would each enjoy a 50% winning percentage with each side.  Hence since I think we can agree the Soviet side in any reasonable game would 'do better' prima facia that the victory conditions should on its face be 'easier' for the Axis.
 
Now then actually doing this is going to be pretty darn hard!  For me, I don't care so much about victory conditions and such, I just like to play.. I would be happy with a game like War in the East, and feel very satisfied at the end for just the play itself.. but I know most folks will want a way to tally up who wins.  I don't envy the folks trying to come up with that, and at the risk of sounding smug I will predict that no matter what they come up with, after players play the game, they themselves will begin to adjust the victory conditions to more closely mimic the results they see.
 

[EdinHouston]

I think its extremely unlikely that Barbarossa could have succeeded. The huge supply problems arising from the distances involved, coupled with the fact that the Soviet army was much bigger and stronger than Germany thought, made it very very difficult for Barbarossa to succeed.

Now, could Barbarossa have succeeded under different assumptions, ie, dont aim for a 3 month victory, but accept that a 1942 campaign would be required too? IMO possibly, but still not likely. But certainly the Germans could have dug in after the Kiev victories and waited for spring, rather than launch the Moscow offensive and get their army mauled. But of course, its questionable that Germany would have invaded in the first place if they had known that a single season campaign couldnt succeed.

Obviously if Germany had pursued other policies towards the non-Russian ethnics, and indeed, treated the Russian prisoners better to encourage their surrender, then that could have changed the whole situation... but its hard to see NAZI Germany doing that. And a different political regime in Germany wouldnt have been in that war in the first place.

I am not even convinced that Germany could have defeated Russia even in a one-front war, the caveat being that the Soviets needed Lend-Lease in order to devote so much of their industry to weapons and such. With no Lend-lease, their military production would have been much lower, which in turn would mean that Germany's prospects in a long war would be better...

[ezzler]

There are many good points and theories here. Some are a little misguided, like Germany gearing up for war earlier. Well, in 1939 the 98k rifle, the staple of the army was cut to 0% production. As were mortar bombs for the 50mm. There just weren't the raw materials to make anymore.
The Germans low point for materials came in spring '39.

The main issue though is that the Germans performed as well as a veteran War in the East player, while the USSR behaved like a WIF newbie who has just opened the box. Still the USSR won.
AND..
Nothing happens in isolation. The Allies would have altered their strategies accordingly if the axis was doing better. Like those arguments that the Me262 could have won the air war in 1942 if produced in great numbers. Only if the Allies didn't react., didn't target the airfields, didn't fly in group instead of squadron strength, didn't rush through their own jets etc etc.

[sveint]

Invariably in these discussions Germany is allowed to correct mistakes... while the Soviets are not. If the Soviets are allowed to do things better, just like Germany, there is absolutely no way Germany could have won. Just imagine properly deployed Soviet forced during the first few months of the war.

[Greybriar]

If. The biggest word in the English vocabulary. [;)]

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: ezz

The main issue though is that the Germans performed as well as a veteran War in the East player, while the USSR behaved like a WIF newbie who has just opened the box. Still the USSR won.

This sort of lends to my hypothesis that the Germans couldn't win. No matter how many hundreds of thousands of prisoners they took, no matter how many tanks they destroyed in battle or aircraft they destroyed on the ground the USSR had relatively inexhaustible resources in material and manpower compared to Germany. They had more oil, more minerals and more people. Plus the supply lines for the Germans just grew more tenuous the further they advanced and the Soviets were not going to roll over and die no matter how miserably the Germans defeated them on the battlefield or how much territory they took. It was a fight to the bitter end. Basically it comes down to numbers and the Soviets had greater numbers of everything.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: sveint

Invariably in these discussions Germany is allowed to correct mistakes... while the Soviets are not. If the Soviets are allowed to do things better, just like Germany, there is absolutely no way Germany could have won. Just imagine properly deployed Soviet forced during the first few months of the war.

This is an excellent point. Well stated.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: ezz

There are many good points and theories here. Some are a little misguided, like Germany gearing up for war earlier. Well, in 1939 the 98k rifle, the staple of the army was cut to 0% production. As were mortar bombs for the 50mm. There just weren't the raw materials to make anymore.
The Germans low point for materials came in spring '39.

Come on now. If Germany had shortages of strategic materials in 1939, the war would have been over much, much sooner than it was. Germany had in fact created huge stocks of strategic materials which they may fall short of if cut off by blockade. Critical materials did not run short until well into 1944. This resulted in weaker chargers being built into AA rounds and portions of a/c being made of substandard material. In 1939 Germany acquired the Skoda Arms works from Czechoslovakia a and the weapons from same. This was when the new German Army was able to standardized their infantry rifles-which meant getting rid of several old German made types as; 1. they weren't as good as the new Czech Rifles, 2. they had more ammo (billions of rounds) for the Czech rifles. There were also military hardware of every type that was immediately included into the German forces From Czech sources.

Nothing happens in isolation. The Allies would have altered their strategies accordingly if the axis was doing better. Like those arguments that the Me262 could have won the air war in 1942 if produced in great numbers. Only if the Allies didn't react., didn't target the airfields, didn't fly in group instead of squadron strength, didn't rush through their own jets etc etc.

While I agree with this in principle, it does not always fit the reality. Simple case in point; why didn't Germany institute the 72 hour work week as did the UK. The Allied powers were doing everything they could to increase production-they could not do anything else-especially GB-they were tapped out on labor. Therefore, there would not have been any added production from GB, the USA or Russia if Germany had increased its production.
The only major power that could have very easily experience a major production increase earlier in the war was Germany. Italy had real strategic shortages of critical materials that could not be overcome, and Japan had industrial capacity limitations that would take years to overcome. Germany, on the other hand had the material, the factory space, and although a little short on labor in 1940, a peace time work week that could have been modified -at the stroke of a pen.


The higher production still would not guarantee a German victory, but it most certainly would have had a major impact on the war. And that impact would have had very significant effects on the Allied powers ability to gain an advantage against Germany on any front. This is the number one error by Germany in the whole war-not gearing up right at the beginning.