The first four points on aev’s list are indeed sensible and practical things, related to some important basic elements of modern warfare, which would indeed have been helpful to Germany. I’m not sure if they would have compensated sufficiently for some of the more fundamental mistakes the German leadership made, but they would have helped. The other four points on the list are more difficult to assess, for various reasons. One of the reasons the Me262 wasn’t mass-produced (in addition to the question of strategic priorities) was that Germany was (as I recall) having problems with the high-temperature steels required for its jet turbines. Regarding the Walther and Elektro subs, it could be argued that by the time these designs were operational the Allies had learned from their mistakes in the first half of the Battle of the Atlantic and had put in place (and had done so in large numbers) a wide range of weapons and technologies and tactics to deal with the submarine menace. The Allies had also realized that, although sinking subs was useful, their first priority was ensuring the safe and timely arrival of their convoys. To put the argument in exaggerated terms: saving all their convoys and sinking zero U-boats from 1939 to 1945 would have been a tremendous Allied victory, whereas sinking 100% of Germany’s U-boats but losing 100% of their convoys in the process would have been an Allied catastrophe. The Walthers and Elektros were good at hiding underwater for a long time, which was fine for getting from France to the deep Atlantic and back again without being detected, but that ability in itself was meaningless unless they actually went into combat against convoys (and thus exposed themselves to detection and attack by the escort vessels which were concentrated around the convoys). The final point about German aircraft carriers, in my opinion, wouldn’t have made any difference: if having carriers was the only thing needed to secure the English Channel, then Britain would have had nothing to worry about in 1940 because the Royal Navy had several carriers in service and Germany had none.
Also another German issue that tends to get ignored in history is Germany not doing for Italy and the other Axis Europe like what US did for the allies. By some kind of Lend-Lease, Italy had a very weak army and the Generals of Italy knew that and Hitler for the most part ignored request for equipment sharing. Rommel himself said that he respected Italy troops in Africa, they were great fighters and good men, he however had no respect for there officer corp that would continue to ignored the fact that Italy and Germany where allies so they would not take German orders and there logical corp would refuse to resupply German forces even though Rommel had no problem doing for the Italians.
Also I believe that Germany taking his military into Poland too soon was a great weakness, maybe not a defeat but a weakness. I think if he stuck with Plan Z like the Admiralty wanted, Germany would be in better position to take on Home Fleet.
Thank you CWOMarc for your kind answer.
I would like to adress that if there would have been a smarter develop Institution without German bureaucracy, it would have solved many issues like the Me262, Panther,XXI boats, Caliber Arguments, building and Priorities.
Thats all. :-)
All interesting points, and I will only add this:
It seems odd to me that Germany would not have driven a harder position regarding a negotiated settlement with the UK after the fall of France. I know there were some tepid efforts that went nowhere. But what if Germany delivered an “inverted ultimatum” in which Germany declared it was going to unilaterally conclude a final peace treaty with France and then withdraw from France. (Albeit France would be under a right-wing, Vichy-ish government.),
What would UK have done? Said no? The UK people would have continued supporting a war government that was going to “reinvade” France? The US would have been off-footed too. The UK would no longer been under threat, taking the wind out of the US interventionist sails.
I think such a deft move would have thrown the UK off balance. Why go on fighting after a bruising loss when the enemy is ostensibly giving up its gains?
True Italy would have been a problem to get to go along given they were losing their colonies, but if I were Hitler I would have said, “tough luck.”
My understanding was the Hitler never intended to “conquer” the west, just defeat them so as Germany could move eastward without a potential 2nd front in the rear.
Interesting thought Karl and one I’ve never heard mentioned or entertained myself. Hmm… would be like France, USA and Germany agreeing to Versailles and UK saying no.
Obviously some differences between the two but an interesting "what if " nonetheless : )
Interesting thought Karl and one I’ve never heard mentioned or entertained myself. Hmm… would be like France, USA and Germany agreeing to Versailles and UK saying no.
Obviously some differences between the two but an interesting "what if " nonetheless : )
Yes, one major historical fact that often gets overlooked is that the “unconditional surrender”/total victory aspect of WWII was not in play until 1942 when Roosevelt unilaterally made it Allied policy. Until then, most sides at least entertained the idea the war could be concluded via negotiated settlement that would result in some sort of preservation of the status quo. Initially the UK made noise like they would never negotiate w/Germany, but I think that would have proved problematic to follow through if Germany had, as I said, pulled out of France after 1940.
What ifs…. :lol:
Good thought Karl, and I do like the vien that it’s on, but I don’t think it would have worked.
The international community still would have seen it as a puppet government - and invaded anyways; and the German ego at that point was too big to accept that kind of situation.
The kind of scenario described by Karl is imaginative (I don’t think I’ve ever previously heard a scenario along those exact lines), but I think it’s improbable for a number of reasons. Hitler had a visceral hatred for France (dating back to his WWI experiences, and to Germany’s 1918 surrender, which Hitler regarded as a national tragedy), and his 1940 conquest of France was to a large degree (though not exclusively) motivated by a desire for revenge; it wasn’t entirely about securing his western flank for a campaign against the Soviets. The concept of Hitler defeating France and then basically saying to the international community “There, I’ve proved my point. Now, shall we all sit down and discuss a reasonable settlement?” strikes me as being out of character with Hitler, who wasn’t known for his reasonableness or for his subtlety. And I’m not sure he would have found any buyers among the international community, which by then understood that treaties with Hitler were meaningless stopgaps at best and a prelude to invasion at worst.
The concept of Hitler unilaterally withdrawing from France and leaving behind a puppet regime in charge of the whole country would probably have been problematic both to Germany and to France. Germany did set up a few puppet regimes during WWII, but as far as I know they were all small, obscure, and buried deep inside German-controlled Europe. In other words, they were strategically inconsequential. The concept wouldn’t have worked in France, which is a large country, which controlled a vast colonial empire, and which has an Atlantic coastline within eyeball distance of Britain on a clear day. Hitler was very worried about that coastline, as can be seen from which parts of France he chose to keep under direct German occupation; it constituted a threat to his western flank which could not be eliminated even with France under German occupation, and it would have been even more of a vulnerable area if it had been left in the hands of the Vichy regime, which Hitler rightfully distrusted. The Vichy regime was a collaborationist regime, but it was too much of a loose cannon to be considered a puppet regime; part of its agenda was maintaining the fiction (in its own mind as well as among the French population) that it was its own boss. Consider what happened when the Allies invaded North Africa: Germany was angered that the French colonial forces had not resisted more energetically, and it promptly occupied the southern part of France controlled by Vichy; the Vichy regime responded by scuttling its fleet to keep it out of German hands. True puppet regimes are much more docile than that.
I think the easiest answer to why Hitler didn’t withdraw from France was simply because he didn’t trust the Vichy French government. Let’s say he did pull out the Wehrmacht, I wouldn’t find it surprising if UK tried to land a full force on the country just to have easy access to invade Italy and Germany. Easiest answer is that he didn’t trust the French and knew Italy was a weakness for him as he had to save Italy once already against Greece.
Yeah, doubtful Hitler would have walked away from his prize….
As for a France, I think Germany could have pulled out with monitors left behind etc to make sure France didn’t rearm etc. Further, the UK didn’t have the power to land a big enough force to singlehandedly secure France before Germany could move back in… assuming there was enough German reserve troops in Germany for such an operation.
Well, as historical what-ifs, I think it would have been a brilliant, if risky, stroke to unilaterally pull out and turn the English people against their leadership and the continuation of war, not to mention to put wind in the sails of the US isolationists.
Good thought Karl, and I do like the vien that it’s on, but I don’t think it would have worked.
The international community still would have seen it as a puppet government - and invaded anyways; and the German ego at that point was too big to accept that kind of situation.
Yeah, but the “international community” at that point would have only been the UK and its Empire… not enough to reinvade by itself.
Yeah, doubtful Hitler would have walked away from his prize….
As for a France, I think Germany could have pulled out with monitors left behind etc to make sure France didn’t rearm etc. Further, the UK didn’t have the power to land a big enough force to singlehandedly secure France before Germany could move back in… assuming there was enough German reserve troops in Germany for such an operation.
Well, as historical what-ifs, I think it would have been a brilliant, if risky, stroke to unilaterally pull out and turn the English people against their leadership and the continuation of war, not to mention to put wind in the sails of the US isolationists.
Except he allowed the Vichy French to be armed. The condition of surrendered France was allowing Vichy to control its southern half and all of its colonies. Vichy France and a full army, navy, and air force. I still believe if the Wehrmacht pulled out, UK would of seized momentum and land on France in full force. Hitler knew this, that’s why France lost complete control of the northern half.
@Caesar:
… UK would of seized momentum and land on France in full force. …
which would be a delight for the Germans as the Brits would be concentrated once again for destruction.
@Caesar:
… UK would of seized momentum and land on France in full force. …
which would be a delight for the Germans as the Brits would be concentrated once again for destruction.
I don’t believe so. The force that UK put on France in 40 was a joke and not a full force as it should of been. At the time, the whole point of that X force UK sent was because it was believe France would pull the same thing they did in WWI and actually fight.
Seems time for some shameless self promotion. Let’s get down to it.
The easiest thing they could have done - is put GARGANTUA in charge. :D
For my part, I think based off of cost to the German war effort with the least impact on German policy during the War the easiest thing they could have done to benefit themselves would have been to get Spain involved in the War.
Had Hitler gotten Spain involved in the war it would have changed almost nothing, certainly not the outcome… Spain was no super power, they had no massive military, even the most beneficial thing getting Spain involved in the war could do, possibly take Gibraltar, would have been nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Spain was militarily and emotionally depleted after the long Civil War… they were in no-condition to take on America, the US and Russia alongside Germany. If anything, adding Spain would have actually weakened Hitler’s position, as adding the entire Spanish coastline as a possible landing spot for Allied forces in continental Europe would have been yet another further manpower drain on Germany.
Nope, sorry… there’s many things you can argue that would have given Hitler a better chance at winning the war, major or minor… getting Spain to join-in is not one of them.
I never said that Spain’s military was going to change the war, I said their location to Gibraltar would. Spain’s military may not have been much for the reasons you stated, but it probably could have taken out Gibraltar, and even if it couldn’t the Germans could have attacked it by land and it would have fallen. Or even if the Germans didn’t want to commit the troops to seize it they could have lined the the coast with 88’s and aircraft to destroy British supply to Africa, which would have seen Africa/Suez fall (IMO).
To me Spanish entry into the war means the fall of Gibraltar, and an argument could def. be made that had Gibraltar fallen not only would Africa have fallen, but the Battle of Britain would have ended up differently. All of that just for forgiving some debt that Spain incurred during their civil war, which eventually they never paid back since Germany lost. That’s a bargain.
@Imperious:
All Hitler would need to do is after finishing off France, be the best of friends with Stalin and even use him to take the UK colonial assets within reach with the spoils going to each party in a fair way. Make peace with UK or bomb them into rubble and never get allied with Japan or DOW USA. After this just let the holdings percolate for at least 20 years.
Not the dumbest thing Hitler could have done to be sure… there is merit here…
Uh, no.
The basic premise of the question was what could Germany have done that was relatively minor that could have influenced the war. Saying that Hitler could have joined forces with Stalin is absurd. The ability of Hitler to have a legit alliance with Communist Russia is like saying the war would have ended up differently had Hitler converted to Judaism. The non-aggression pact was about 2 gangsters dividing turf, and at the soonest op. one of them made a grab for the other’s turf (Barbarossa). Had France not been conquered so quickly and trench warfare started up again the U.S.S.R. would have attacked in the same land grab that Germany did in 41.
The idea of a real German/Soviet alliance is about as real as an American/Soviet alliance during the cold war.
All interesting points, and I will only add this:
It seems odd to me that Germany would not have driven a harder position regarding a negotiated settlement with the UK after the fall of France. I know there were some tepid efforts that went nowhere. But what if Germany delivered an “inverted ultimatum” in which Germany declared it was going to unilaterally conclude a final peace treaty with France and then withdraw from France. (Albeit France would be under a right-wing, Vichy-ish government.),
What would UK have done? Said no? The UK people would have continued supporting a war government that was going to “reinvade” France? The US would have been off-footed too. The UK would no longer been under threat, taking the wind out of the US interventionist sails.
I think such a deft move would have thrown the UK off balance. Why go on fighting after a bruising loss when the enemy is ostensibly giving up its gains?
True Italy would have been a problem to get to go along given they were losing their colonies, but if I were Hitler I would have said, “tough luck.”
My understanding was the Hitler never intended to “conquer” the west, just defeat them so as Germany could move eastward without a potential 2nd front in the rear.
I like your point here. Perhaps more of an effort to end the war in 40 would have been the best way to go. I am not sure if Hitler would have turned unoccupied France into a Vichy like system. I think Vichy was created because France was Germany’s west flank and it had to be protected. Because Hitler was so into revenge for WW1 I think he would have set up reparations for France to pay and limit their military had Britain agreed to end the war.
While I agree that is the least intrusive as far as German/Nazi mentality during the war, Hitler was a stupid gambler.
It is a dumb game show, but if you have ever watched “Deal or No Deal”, you would know it is a game of chance about really dumb people (usually) going for the big money even though the math does not add up. Their greed gets in the way, and they fail. I don’t think Hitler had it in him to stop in 40. He was just too dumb.
Two things here:
1: Vichy France was a necessary thing for Hitler because I believe he didn’t have the ability to take control of French colonies because Germany didn’t have the navy to do it and I think a puppet France would eventually be taken directly over if Germany won.
2: I don’t buy that crap that Germany and USSR couldn’t be allies if it came down to it. While I agree they both hate a distrust of each other and why wouldn’t they, both sides fought each other in Spain. You can find opinions of Stalin/Hitler talking about possible alliances with the other. Stalin openly said he would of gladly joined Germany in France if he was asked and would of asked Hitler for assistance against Finland if UK/France entered Finland.
Oh and I don’t buy that crap that comparing Germany/USSR alliance would be the same as US/USSR alliance in the Cold War because US/USSR ended up technically be allies in the Iran-Iraq war.
@Caesar:
1: Vichy France was a necessary thing for Hitler because I believe he didn’t have the ability to take control of French colonies because Germany didn’t have the navy to do it and I think a puppet France would eventually be taken directly over if Germany won.
Germany had the ability.
BUT: It would have bind necessary resources needed for the east campaign.
@Caesar:
2: I don’t buy that crap that Germany and USSR couldn’t be allies if it came down to it. While I agree they both hate a distrust of each other and why wouldn’t they, both sides fought each other in Spain. You can find opinions of Stalin/Hitler talking about possible alliances with the other. Stalin openly said he would of gladly joined Germany in France if he was asked and would of asked Hitler for assistance against Finland if UK/France entered Finland.
Communism and nationalism don’t go well along.
The Ribbentrop pact alliance was a military pact and not of the idealogies.
Sooner or later they would have killed each other off anyway.
