could germany have won ww2?

Question

if mussolini hadnt poked his nose in by attacking greece and therefore delaying the invasion of the ussr

Answer 1

I wouldn’t describe the Italian invasion of Greece as a distraction, per se. There were good strategic reasons for the move. If the Axis could seize and control Greece then Russia would have been cut off from support through the warm-water Black Sea ports. Unfortunately for Hitler’s plan Mussolini’s forces weren’t up to the task. Even with the diversion of forces to the Aegean theater Germany rolled over the Red Army at an astonishing rate.

While it is true that the Aegean campaign delayed the start of Barbarossa by six weeks, I believe that the critical decision that sealed Hitler’s fate was made by Stalin, who had another unbloodied army in the Far East, deployed near the Manchurian border and assigned the task of confronting the Japanese.

In 1941 Japan’s military strategy was in flux. America, a chief source of oil and scrap steel, was becoming a hostile power over the continuing war in China. The Army brass favored a “strike north” strategy against the USSR. They reasoned that since Russia was on the brink of defeat at Germany’s hands Japan should attack Russia as well and thereby gain control of the resources east of the Urals. The Imperial Japanese Navy disagreed. They pointed out that Japan needed new sources of oil much faster than a war with Russia could reasonable secure. The Navy won the argument and the “strike south” plan was adopted. This decision lead directly to Pearl Harbor.

Through his spymaster in Tokyo, Richard Sorge, Stalin learned about Japan’s intentions. Thus he was free to move the Far East army to the western front, a march that took four months to complete. By December 1941 Stalin massed his Siberians against the Wehrmacht, who were waiting for better weather to finish off the Soviets for good. It was their counter-attack that halted the swelling Nazi tide.

Answer 2

It's possible if the United States had stayed out of it, like a LOT of people wanted to do. I think it was the Buzz Bombs raining down on the British population that brought our hearts to join the fight!! There was so much resentment left over from WWI, that a lot of resistence kept the US back. Only when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor did Congress and Roosevelt finally declare war upon "The Axis". I'm not familiar with Italy's independent attack of Greece and that it delayed Hittler's invasion of the USSR. The Nazis went all the way to Kiev, I think--only the massive population fighting them with the help of Lend Lease from American and Britain, helped stem the tide. It seemed that only Hitler's TIMING was in error--attacking at winter time! He evidently hadn't read his history, it was the Russian winter that defeated Napolean.

Answer 3

One of Hitler's biggest and earliest blunders was his completely fantastic notion that science itself could be racially divided - -and nuclear research was called "Jewish physics" . Top German Jewish scientists fled the country and were able to contribute to the U.S. developing the atom bomb. The remaining German scientists were discouraged from pursuing research considered to be tainted by Jews, and later they were not quick enough to catch up to the U.S.

Germany simply did not have the manpower to sustain a war so long. and on several fronts. By 1945 or even before they were using child soldiers.

But they were perilously close to invading England in 1940, and had it not been for "the Few" and for Germany's mistake in diverting some of their bombing to civilian targets, they would have likely wiped out Britain's air defenses and invaded. Had Britain fallen, an invasion of German occupied territory in the West would have been very difficult.

"If Hitler had not attacked the USSR...?" That could have made all the difference. But that's a HUGE "If". After all, Lebensraum in the East was his big plan, and he saw communism as the natural enemy to National Socialism in a struggle for existence.The deal with Stalin was only to gain time and a big chunk of Poland without Soviet opposition. His idea was then to immobilize the West so he could focus on the USSR.
I liked the who compares him to a one armed monster with a strategy like an octopus makes a good analogy. Even if he were a 2 armed monster, he wasn't a 3 or an 8 which he tried to be. (it wasnt just 2 fronts, they were in Africa too)
His generals have described him as a mystic, who discounted strategy (even while not always ignoring it) in favor of a belief that the will to win is the only thing that really mattered.

Answer 4

Dear,

In War, Tactical plays the Major role.

During Germany attacking USSR, the are many thing must be taken into considerations.

1. Weather

2. Logistic Support

3. The Strength

4. The Moral.

4. The USSR (Enemy) Moral and Courage.

5. Defense have greater privilege than attacker.

The attack on Moscow (USSR) base on the above factors.

1. Weather against the German Force. Winter Obstacle.

2. There was lack of Logistic Support from the German Force.

3. The Strength. The German are under Strength.

4. Moral. The German Moral are low, tried and hungry.

5. The USSR are defending their own nation. In attacking, the force of attacking MUST be 3 times the Force of Defending in Theory. The USSR Moral are high defending their own nation with full Logistic and Moral support. The USSR are in position and know well about their Terrain.

Due to the above factors, The German lost the War to USSR. The USSR encounter attack Berlin and Won the War over Germany. Adolf Hitler committed suicide with his newly married wife Eve Braun in the Air Raid Bunker in Berlin.

Answer 5

Absolutely not.

They could not have won because they attacked the USSR. The delay, if any, was prolonging the survival of Nazism.

Keep in mind, please, that the German and other Axis forces were tied in a deadlock over the English channel, subduing resistance French, contending with remaining Spanish republican pockets of resistance (which lasted until after WWII) and trying to maintain its own troubled resource flow as it was.

If Germany were to win the second world war, Hitler needed to maintain truce with Stalin and continue the push for England. Only by directing the German machine at one thing at a time could its full potential come into fruition.

More or less, Hitler was a one-armed monster who strategised like an Octopus.

Proof? Hitler defeated a not-to-be-underestimated French Army, the European resistance forces and any early British aid to the French in horrifically short time. When divided and faced against both rival ideologies however, it was a steady but consistant retreat, from Tobruk to Berlin.

Answer 6

I doubt it. Contrary to the popular accolades to Hitler for improving the German economy, those improvements were short-lived. You can get by on looting only for so long. The use of slave labor was also of little benefit. Starving, abused prisoners produced shoddy goods (including weapons), while companies remodeled on National Socialist "principles" and rejecting the capitalist "Jewish" principles, eventually found themselves crumbling; flag-waving, too, will only get you so far in business.

The Third Reich's racial policies caused Germany to hemorrhage human capital. All the best and the brightest who didn't have the right lineage were either killed or went over to work for the other side, against Germany. The Nazi culture was highly anti-intellectual in general, and in time, that would translate into a scientific and technological stagnation.

Finally, the nation that had a problem with most of the world was bound to find most of the world against IT. Although it claimed to be the "Third Rome", the Nazis did not have the Romans' superior social engineering skills, which allowed Romans to control vast territories. Germans left most of their enemies few incentives to submit; no one was going to sign a surrender in order to be sent to a death/labor camp, executed, sterilized, or resettled. Deception worked for a while, but towards the mid-1940's, everyone was realizing that for most people, the choice was between being slaughtered like cattle, worked to death like cattle, or die fighting. I'd venture a guess the overwhelming majority would pick that last option. Germany would have to fight every last one of the "non-Aryans" to the last man, woman and child. And that fight, of course, would be unwinnable.

Answer 7

nicely, ..., as @ioerr has already observed. Germany unfolded 2 fronts. No us of a in the historic previous of the worldwide has been waiting to effectively look after 2 offensive fronts. merely look into the two fronts that GWB unfolded throughout the time of his presidency his deleterious strikes have merely approximately bankrupted the U. S.. Had Germany been content with controlling Europe the third Reich could have lasted an prolonged time. of direction there became the undertaking that Hitler had to difficulty each directive. This became additionally complicated as his own advisors could desire to no longer question his blunders. It additionally created a verbal replace bottleneck the crippled the German conflict gadget. The U-boat conflict, in the commencing up, valuable however the U. S. and enormous Britain did strengthen valuable sub killing technologies which made the U-boat corps between the branches of the service with the optimal mortality fee with the help of wars end. Frankly, i'm happy they did no longer win. this could have been a terrible worldwide for us to stay in had they gained. The atrocities and human suffering could have been plenty plenty worse for all of humanity. So, I for one am happy they lost.

Answer 8

You're right to point to the delay caused by Germany's having to intervene in Yugoslavia and Greece to save the Italian's military incompetence. It was one of the tactical mistakes that delayed the German's approach to Moscow until the mud season, hampering panzer operations.

Hitler made two much larger strategic errors that far overshadow any time-schedule issue:
1. He couldn't decide on his main objective (or identify his enemies "center") and therefore divided his force into three parts with different, and conflicting, objectives. The capture of Moscow was only one, and not the major, objective; sending the panzer south to help the drive into the Caucuses and delaying and weakening Army Group B was a larger mistake.
2. Hitler underestimated Russian forces, resolve, and resilience. For example , at the gates of Moscow, by German reckoning the Red Army had been destroyed. Instead the Germans found themselves facing new, unknown forces EQUAL in number to those Red Army forces killed or captured in the drive to Moscow--to say nothing of the new Russian T34 tank , superior to their own armored force. They faced Zhukov, and Supreme Command that had learned hard lessons in the first months of the war.
3. Still, if the German Army had had free reign, it might have better prepared the logistics for a longer campaign, concentrated the panzer forces into a spear point aimed at Moscow, and by its capture paralyzed the Soviets political, logistical, and transport center. But, after December, '41 the Russians grew, and the Germans shrank.
4. The Germans lost their war against Russia in summer, 1943 after Kursk; most of the battles were fought in non-Russian territory such as Poland, Ukraine and Belarus.

Answer 9

Tactically, the loss of Mussolini's soliders did not affect the outcome on the advancing German forces in to Russia. The Germans had gained considerable ground against the Russian, however this was because Stalin was not expecting an invasion, however Stalin devised a massive counter-attack near Moscow by fresh Russian reinforcements which were brought from the far other side of Russia, from Siberia and the far East. These fresh forces which were perfectly equipped for extreme winter conditions stopped the German advance and even pushed the Germans back. Moscow was saved, the Germans were stopped.

Statigically, your name sake "Adolf" should have waited until summer to advance German troops in to Russia, as most German losses resulted from hypothermia in the extreme weather and loss of military equipment to the muddy wintered terrain.

Answer 10

They could have made it even more expensive world wide. But they had nothing like the forces arrayed against them. Or resources. Even if they had taken the USSR and its resources.... Well, first a lot were unknown then, second no infrastructure existed to get them out in many places. Germany in both World Wars just explodes the myth that any elite military can conquer the world. There are just to many resources against any one country. The more that is taken, the harder to control. The further you conquer the longer your supply line. That means more troops to control it. That equals less to use against the main enemy forces.....