World War II: Could Germany win?

[Roman Soldier]

There is one factor that I think everyone is forgetirng: the nuclear card. The Nazis never came close to building an atomic bomb, and they never even had a decent excuse for atomic bomb program.

Tha Nazis deemed the theory of relativity "Jewish Science" because it was conceived by Jewish scientist Albert Einstein. They didn't want to use it in their program because of this. Building an atomic bomb without the theory of relativity is impossible.

The United States, however, had no problem using the theory and had many more scientists than the Germans. We had the atomic bomb in 1945, and using Aulstrailia's uranium supply we would have been able to have several built by 1946 or 47. One has to wonder how a war between nuclear America and non-nuclear Japan and Germany would have resulted.

So even if Hitler had managed to find a way to conquer Britain and the Soviet Union, he would have had to face our nukes. Alll that would have been left in Europe to fight would have been the German cockroach.

 

[Roman Soldier]

Bumping to see who agrees and disagrees with my nuclear theory.

 

[TScott]

Bumping to see who agrees and disagrees with my nuclear theory.

I don't think Einstein had anything to do with fission nor fusion, but I agree, the German nuclear program was going no-where. I read that when one of Hitler's advisors told him that running off all the Jewish Physicists would put them behind in that field he went into a rage claiming that he didn't care if it put them a thousand years behind.

If Hitler had won the war in Europe in 1941/42 I'm not convinced our having the bomb in 1945 would have been effective, or if using it against a powerful Germany would have even been wise. If by then the Germans had complete control of the air, sending a bomber to Germany from the US would have been very risky. What if the plane was shot down and the Germans recovered the bomb in tact?

Besides, declaring war on the US was one of his biggest blunders.

 

[oldrooster]

If Germany had not declared war on the United States, she had a chance of victory. Britan and the USSR were both on the brink of collapse at that time.

 

[Sanguine]

Britan and the USSR were both on the brink of collapse at that time.

The USSR wasn't, Britain was. It was all a matter of timing, at the time when Hitler agreed to divy up Poland with Stalin, he could succeeded in invading the USSR with relative ease. But since tactical insanity was Hitler's forte, he went and attacked a comparitively strong island nation, brought it to it's knee's then back off. Only to pick a fight with a now battle ready (atleast much more so than in 1939-40) USSR. Then there was not listening to Rommel about the D-day landing site etc etc.

 

[Roman Soldier]

The USSR wasn't, Britain was. It was all a matter of timing, at the time when Hitler agreed to divy up Poland with Stalin, he could succeeded in invading the USSR with relative ease. But since tactical insanity was Hitler's forte, he went and attacked a comparitively strong island nation, brought it to it's knee's then back off. Only to pick a fight with a now battle ready (atleast much more so than in 1939-40) USSR.

That only would have worked if France and Britain weren't going to go to war with Germany for invading Poland.

 

[Dark Sage]

Germany could have won, but they didn't. Case solved.

 

[Sanguine]

That only would have worked if France and Britain weren't going to go to war with Germany for invading Poland

With Britain perhaps, but France were push overs, and even with Britain it could have worked because they were in no way ready to mount an assault capable of recapturing a foothold in mainland Europe, not for a few years anyway.

 

[oldrooster]

Germany was in view of Moscow in December of 1941, most of the government of the USSR had left town, even the US embassy was predicting total defeat. The U-Boats were in the process of starving Britain at the time. It probably was the darkest time in all of the war, once the US joined, our industrial power alone guarenteed victory for the allies.

 

[Agrippa]

The USSR wasn't, Britain was. It was all a matter of timing, at the time when Hitler agreed to divy up Poland with Stalin, he could succeeded in invading the USSR with relative ease. But since tactical insanity was Hitler's forte, he went and attacked a comparitively strong island nation, brought it to it's knee's then back off. Only to pick a fight with a now battle ready (atleast much more so than in 1939-40) USSR. Then there was not listening to Rommel about the D-day landing site etc etc.

But Hitler couldn't do anything against GB. Sealion would have been a complete disaster. Bombing wasn't going to force a capitulation. Germany couldn't really attack British colonies. Spain refused to let Germany attack Gibralter. The Italian defeat in North Africa against O'Conner came as a complete surprise, so the Germans weren't thinking of doing anything there. Thus, the British were pretty much secure.

Turning on the USSR was the best thing Hitler could have done. The Red Army was only getting stronger following its wake-up call in Finland and it's likely that Stalin would attack once he was strong enough. A pre-emptive strike was the only option.

 

[jgarden]

1. The Germans would have been much more successful if it was for their worst enemy - Hitler.
2. The USSR would have put up a better defense if their officer corp hadn't been executed or sent to Siberia, by Stalin.
3. The Germans may have had superior technology at the beginning of the war, but they were unable to put new technological advances into mass production. The Stuka may have been state of the art in Spain, but the Germans couldn't produce the equivalent of the Mustang.
4. The Germans never produced a long range heavy bomber such as the B-17 or the Lancaster. They were ill equiped to bomb Britain into submission.
5. Instead of bombing the British airfields, the Germans shifted to the cities. Big mistake.
6. The attack on the USSR, was the ultimate folly. The Germans had neither the troops nor the supply lines to conquer a country the size of a continent.
They were totally unprepared for the Russian winter, nor could they match the Russians man-for-man in urban warfare such as Stalingrad.
7. The Americans brought in fresh troops and a technology that was constantly evolving. Between American technology and the sheer number of Russian troops, the Germans never stood a chance.

 

[oldrooster]

There is one factor that I think everyone is forgetirng: the nuclear card. The Nazis never came close to building an atomic bomb, and they never even had a decent excuse for atomic bomb program.

Tha Nazis deemed the theory of relativity "Jewish Science" because it was conceived by Jewish scientist Albert Einstein. They didn't want to use it in their program because of this. Building an atomic bomb without the theory of relativity is impossible.

The United States, however, had no problem using the theory and had many more scientists than the Germans. We had the atomic bomb in 1945, and using Aulstrailia's uranium supply we would have been able to have several built by 1946 or 47. One has to wonder how a war between nuclear America and non-nuclear Japan and Germany would have resulted.

So even if Hitler had managed to find a way to conquer Britain and the Soviet Union, he would have had to face our nukes. Alll that would have been left in Europe to fight would have been the German cockroach.

I really dont think that the US would have ever dropped an atomic bomb in Europe. We would never have nuked a white nation at that time.

 

[Roman Soldier]

I really dont think that the US would have ever dropped an atomic bomb in Europe. We would never have nuked a white nation at that time.

Some like to say that, but I don't think that we showed any mercy to the Germans just because they were Caucasian.

 

[Agrippa]

I really dont think that the US would have ever dropped an atomic bomb in Europe. We would never have nuked a white nation at that time.

That's bogus. We were willing to firebomb German cities, why not use a nuke? We developed the atomic bomb specifically for use against Germany.

 

[jgarden]

Germany, not Japan, was the number 1 priority for the Allies. The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people that the atomic bombs.

 

[oldrooster]

We specifically left some Japanese cities virtually untouched, just so we could see the efectiveness of the bomb. We,however, did not spare any major German cities.

 

[Sanguine]

Stalin would attack once he was strong enough. A pre-emptive strike was the only option

Stalin could barely believe that Operation Barbarossa was happening, he thought relations with Germany were peachy. While the potential for an unprovoked Soviet invasion was there, Stalin would be very unlikely to act upon it.

 

[paul becke]

The attack on the USSR was not the problem. The delay in the attack to move into Yugoslavi and Greece first was a problem coupled then with diversion of strength from the push to Moscow to attack Kiev was fatal. Alienating the Russian civilian population prior to the complete destruction of the Red army was a mistake also.

It's difficult to address such a vast topic, other than to note that, providentially, Hitler fancied he understood war better than his generals, who had forgotten more about it than he would have learned - and regularly overruled them.

What seems little known - I'm a 71 year old Brit and have only learnt it quite recently - is that WWI was engineered by us, the UK, to thwart the economic alliance the Germans and the Russians had been planning.

 

[Jpark]

I don't believe in chance.

Things like weather had a big impact on the war.

Things like Hitler's paranoia allowed him to escape multiple assassination attempts.

And according to the Old Testament, weather and disposition are from God.

 

[Cooch]

I really dont think that the US would have ever dropped an atomic bomb in Europe. We would never have nuked a white nation at that time.

Nuclear warfare was not regarded with anything like the horror that some feel for it now. At the time is was considered as nothing more than a way of accomplishing with one aircraft what would otherwise take a series of raids incurring far greater allied losses.

I believe that you also have no conception of how grieved the Allies were at their huge losses, how threatened they felt by Nazi ambitions, and how simply tired they were of the war. Nuclear weapons would have been seen as nothing more than a way to end the war more quickly and with fewer losses.

Of course they would have been used against Germany had they been available.

And rightly so.