Matrix Games Forums

I think that a total military victory from Barbarossa was, in real life, close to impossible to get, for the reason alone of the USSR's gigantic size and vast human resources. Napoleon didn't get a total military victory, and neither did the Kaiser - although both of them achieved significant victories in the battlefield. In the first case, the autocratic Russian government didn't break, while in the second it did.

So, what Hitler would have to do in order to obtain a political settlement or a political upheaval in the USSR? I read that Stalin himself expected to be ousted by the Politburo after the 1941 disasters, and was relived when the party closed ranks behind him. Say Stalin had been ousted, would that have created a climate for a settlement with Hitler?

Or, say Hitler had been less of a genocidal lunatic, and had offered independence to the Baltic states, to Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya and Azerbaijan, on the good old strategy of divide and conquer (kinda what he did with his "protection" of Czechoslovakia)... could that have broken the Politburo's will to continue war?

sounds a tad silly, but NOT be Hitler; he would need a complete change of mindset; ie not be a genocidal nut case risk taking gambler...have a clear, concise and well thought out foreign policy which aimed to create political solutions....the Soviets were able to enforce a political solution on Eastern Europe which lasted for 50 years....so..perhaps the german regime should have offered an alliance with Poland (tell the Poles they can have back their lost territories in Russia) and offered true independence to Western Russia, Ukraine and the baltic states under german protection....but would this have caused the Soviets to sue for peace...probably not...and then with starvation haunting western europe the whole reich would probably collapse after about 10 years...and fat chance the Nazis would do any of this....

ORIGINAL: johntoml56
sounds a tad silly, but NOT be Hitler; he would need a complete change of mindset; ie not be a genocidal nut case risk taking gambler...have a clear, concise and well thought out foreign policy which aimed to create political solutions....the Soviets were able to enforce a political solution on Eastern Europe which lasted for 50 years....so..perhaps the german regime should have offered an alliance with Poland (tell the Poles they can have back their lost territories in Russia) and offered true independence to Western Russia, Ukraine and the baltic states under german protection....but would this have caused the Soviets to sue for peace...probably not...and then with starvation haunting western europe the whole reich would probably collapse after about 10 years...and fat chance the Nazis would do any of this....

+1.

What if Hitler had:
* Reformed the German economy.
* Started a massive industrialisation program.
* Built monuments, held marches.
* Increased the size of the military.
* Founded the Hitler Youth.
* Disbanded the SS.
* Built an aggressive trade program based on importing raw materials from nations willing to provide them (USSR, Africa) and exporting finished goods to those who had yet to build up an equivalent manufacturing program (USA, most of the rest of Europe).
* Negotiated with Poland for an access corridor between East Prussia and the rest of Germany, based on building a set of equal-access railways and using Polish labour to staff German shipbuilding industry in Danzig.
* Not invaded Poland, France, or Czechoslovakia. Not declared war on the USA.
* Not killed the Jews. Put them in charge of the finance and banking systems.

That would have been a political victory, but that also wouldn't have been Hitler.

While it is tempting to consider whether the fall of Lgrad and/or Moscow would have led to the collapse of the USSR during the war, this doesn't seem likely to me. That said, the Soviet regime was still fairly new and not exactly rock solid, so I suppose it is at least a possibility.

But then what would have happened after such "collapse" is another question. I don't think that the Soviet govt would have been replaced by any other government more likely to accept a settlement, but again I suppose it is at least a possibility.

Ultimately however, given the Nazis' penchant for atrocities, alienating potential allies, and seeking unattainable objectives, I don't think that there was any realistic chance of a political settlement.

ORIGINAL: johntoml56

sounds a tad silly, but NOT be Hitler; he would need a complete change of mindset; ie not be a genocidal nut case risk taking gambler...have a clear, concise and well thought out foreign policy which aimed to create political solutions....

Well, he tried a political settlement with Britain during July 1940. And he managed to get settlements with Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, and was on his way of getting that on Yugoslavia before there was the pro-Allies coup there. So he could do that, if he had to. He had been playing friends with Stalin since 1936 because he had to, and most of the OKH was not enthusiastic of a long war with anyone.

I think that the reason for Hitler's intransigence (before he became mad) was that he believed (just like Napoleon) that he could force a complete military victory while conceding very little or nothing.

After all, Stalin was also a genocidal megalomaniac murderer, but when faced with an impossible military situation he managed to get more flexible in political issues - he decreased the influence of political officers in combat units, allowed a resurgence of czarist symbols, allowed a bit of religion, allied with UK/USA, etc...

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

What if Hitler had:
* Reformed the German economy.
etc...

Well, I'm not arguing about changing Germany to be Super-Powerful-Freedomy,

I'm talking about the perceptions of one person. At one point people regarded Hitler as a skillful strategist -- while he was winning, that is. On a previous point he was even considered a successful politician. Nowadays people think of Hitler as an irrevocable mad dog, and after he got crazy he certainly was. I think it was impossible to talk any sense out of him by 1944/45, perhaps by 1943 too. But between 1939 and 40 his strategic decisions were more correct than Stalin's.

So that Hitler could be talked some sense and could make some coherent foreign policy between 1941 and 1942, that I'm not ready to discard an completely impossible.

What I'm not sure I'd consider possible is the Politburo's acceptance of any such initiative. Churchill didn't (although I'm curious if he would have remained as defiant if there were some Panzers 30 miles from London). Also I'm curious if the Soviet population was at any point close to breaking point. If neither the government or the population would crack, then no matter of sanity would have saved Germany after Barbarossa started.

By the way, the motivation for this thread is what constitutes a "German Victory". In the game, that is achieved by conquering so much territory west of the Volga, including Moscow.

While that's a cute goal from the German point of view, I wonder if the Soviets would second that vision and just lay down their weapons if Hitler had conquered Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow.

I think that from a military perspective the Germans could have conquered all that (just like Napoleon did), and yet lose the war. So the game's parameters for German "Victory", as measured as the player doing better than historical, seem to be just a pretty fiction.

I believe that the real criteria for defining a German "victory" depends on political issues that are not even modeled in the game. Once you take those political concerns out of the criteria, the only realistic result for Germany is defeat, and the military "victory" in the game seems to be as realistic as a flight of fairies.

That's my view, anyway. Just wanted to explain where I'm coming from.

ORIGINAL: fbs
Well, he tried a political settlement with Britain during July 1940. And he managed to get settlements with Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, and was on his way of getting that on Yugoslavia before there was the pro-Allies coup there. So he could do that, if he had to. He had been playing friends with Stalin since 1936 because he had to, and most of the OKH was not enthusiastic of a long war with anyone

Churchill would not negotiate with Hitler in 1940 (others in Britain might have, but I doubt it), especially as the 1938 Munich agreement had been broken. Stalin is unlikely to have trusted any negotiation with Hitler for the same reason, as the 1939 Non-aggression pact had been broken.

Hitler's track record made any political settlement with the main players very unlikely, the only chance would have been an appeal direct to the people and a promise of independence, but he could not have done that either (even in pretence), it was not in his nature. [:)]

ORIGINAL: fbs
By the way, the motivation for this thread is what constitutes a "German Victory". In the game, that is achieved by conquering so much territory west of the Volga, including Moscow.

While that's a cute goal from the German point of view, I wonder if the Soviets would second that vision and just lay down their weapons if Hitler had conquered Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow.

I think that from a military perspective the Germans could have conquered all that (just like Napoleon did), and yet lose the war. So the game's parameters for German "Victory", as measured as the player doing better than historical, seem to be just a pretty fiction.

I believe that the real criteria for defining a German "victory" depends on political issues that are not even modeled in the game. Once you take those political concerns out of the criteria, the only realistic result for Germany is defeat, and the military "victory" in the game seems to be as realistic as a flight of fairies.

That's my view, anyway. Just wanted to explain where I'm coming from.

You are right that the most likely realistic German victory is in forcing a surrender through political collapse, which is the result that he expected ('we have only to kick in the door ...............'). A negotiation of what would have been very harsh terms could only be possible when all other Soviet military options are gone. In the terms of the game, it can only happen when Russia no longer has the military force to put up a credible defence and is that ever likely ?

In Hitler's terms, 'victory' in Russia comes only with annihilation, which his leadership did not have the power to achieve. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Hitler's track record made any political settlement with the main players very unlikely, the only chance would have been an appeal direct to the people and a promise of independence, but he could not have done that either (even in pretence), it was not in his nature. [:)]

Now that's a good point.

Indeed, based on what happened to Vichy France, Poland and Czechoslovakia, I wonder if many leaders would be willing to "take the blame" of surrendering to Hitler. I guess most would rather fight to death.

The easiest way to obtain a political victory is to BE HITLER, fight the western allies and russians and lose the war causing mass devestation to German Infrastructure.

The allies (Americans) will then bring in a Marshall plan and rebuild your economy, turning you into an economic powerhouse.

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The easiest way to obtain a political victory is to BE HITLER, fight the western allies and russians and lose the war causing mass devestation to German Infrastructure.

The allies (Americans) will then bring in a Marshall plan and rebuild your economy, turning you into an economic powerhouse.

If at a significantly lower technological level than the US at that time, Germany already was an economic powerhouse. Like the US, Germany was closed in by tarrifs and empire based trading blocks. The US took from Britain and france, and shared access to markets, which, to use Trotsky's metaphore, unblocked (West) Germany's alimentary canal allowing the unfolding of economic strength for a sustained period instead of the power backing up and regurgitating in the most destructive political and military forms.

I actually tend to go the other way, and argue that I think Germany could have "won", to the extent that they could have achieved enough success to force the USSR into a negotiated peace.

Probably would have just led to another way anyway though.

But I don't think people realize just how close the USSR was to simply running out of men in WW2. There is this idea that the Soviet Union had some magical inexhaustible pool of men to draw on, hence they could never really lose. This is simply not true. The historical result saw the USSR seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel to full out their rifle divisions by the end of the war, and it was only because the Axis powers were in even worse shape that the USSR was able to prevail. That metric, of forcing your opponent into a downward spiral faster than your own downward spiral of irreplaceable resources was a pretty near run thing.

I agree with Berkut that the Soviets were closer to the edge, manpower wise, than most people think.

I think that even if there had been a political collapse in late '41, an anti-German government of some flavor would have eventually emerged from the Urals.
Maybe Berlin would have received the 1st atomic bomb in that case.

A political victory for Hitler would happen if he shot himself in 1941....

The VP system in Wite seems to me one of its flaws. It seems most participants in this thread discussion share a similar view. Do you remember the VP score system of 12 o'clock high? It was better in my opinion. in WitE the only way we can win or lose is by killing millions of soldiers of either side and getting to the VPs by turn 225...

What I mean is (how hate not being able to express myself as I like in english...), the moral system in the game doesn't take into account the way the war is going for your side, not in the east not in the west. The "mandatory" TOE "upgrade" is a major example of what I feel to be a flaw in the way the conflict was modeled in this game.

WitE is so complex, it is so much fun that I almost forget about these issues when playing but they are still there.

I have just about finished my first GC, and in these last few turns the thing that affected me the most were the "mandatory" TOE system and "mandatory" unit morale and the fact that production was artificially diverted to an abstract western front that never took into account what happened in the east.

If Hitler had a few more men available to send Rommel couldn't the time line in the whole western front be different? Those extra men were certainly available in my game I have mastered Blizzard casualties by now and I'm always above the historical strength benchmark by half a million men after blizzard (playing Axis of course...) couldn't a stronger DAK have affected the outcome of military operations in the Mediterranean and thus altered if not the final outcome at least the war entire time table? Maybe allowing a 80% production allocation to the east way into 1944 thus allowing for an Axis win in the east?

So politics, moral, and better "western front" front system would be things I would like to see in a future expansion for Wite.

It is a vast game, so much was covered. There are a few drawbacks...Most of the people that buy this game are very smart people...Once agian, post in suggestions and the team will weigh and balance your thoughts...

I'm fairly convinced that if Hitler had done absolutely nothing different except taking Leningrad, Moscow, and the Caucasus, the Soviets would have folded. I think it was a close run thing in 41 and 42, and like others mentioned the Russians did not have inexhaustible manpower.

Its a 3 year war, Leningrad in 41, Moscow in 42, and the Caucasus in 43. I don't think the Western Allies would have the power to stop them after that...

Oh, there is the bomb, I don't think we would ever dropped it on Germans..