Germany in WWI vs. WWII

[Spricar]

Ok, for starters, I know this thread probably belongs into the history forum but since hardly anyone reads it and considering the fact there are others history but not HOI2 related threads here and that my question is very WWII oriented I decided to post it here as there are some living WWII dictionaries among us. If anything is wrong you can move it...

Now, to the question/debate. I know something about history and this idea is bugging me for some time now. Namely if you read history book, watch documentaries, listen to various comments, etc., you can't help the expressions that although Germany did lose WWII things could very likley turned the other way, in short that they were in fact very close to winning the war. Sure they did some mistakes but in the end it was a tiny margin and thing could've easily gone the other way.
What bothers me is the fact, that Germany (at least that's my opinion) wasn't even close to winning the WWII and that they probably could newer won it. Even more, I think that their defeat wasn't, as I can often hear, just an outcome of some strategical mistakes (like bombing cities in Blitz instead of Arfields or invading Yugoslavia and losing precious time). If you look at their pre-war status they weren't as industrial superior as they were pre WWI, their navy was weak, army too, all they had were very advanced doctrines and ideas of usage of tanks and combined arms, good staff and pretty good airforce. So they were bound to lose and I think that most of their pre and war succeses were results of either gambling (CZ, Memel, Barbarossa) or total inabilitiy of allies (france, Austria). In short, they couldn't win this war and it is truly remarkable they've come as far as they did.

Now in contrary, practically no one is impressed with their role in WWI since I think that they really did have a better chance of wining and were even close. Their position was stronger, they had comparatevly better industry and army, they did kick Russia out of war and exhaust France so they were close of beating them before USA entered the war. Which shouldn't happen in the first place if they would act a little more tactically.

I would really like to hear your opinions...What do you think, were they close of winning in WWI/WWII? Was their position before WWI strong enough to allow them victory? ¸

 

[unmerged(38672)]

Maybe Germany was weaker in WW2 compared to WW1, but so were their enemies. If Germany would have put all effort into defeating Britain with aircraft, subs, new naval vessels and substantially larger effort in Northern Africa, UK would have fallen. After that, I don´t think Soviet would have been able to defeat them by themself, and USA would have really trouble getting a foothold in Europe without the British Isles in friendly hands... Don´t know enough about WW1 to say much about German chances there, but I think France would have fallen in 1918 if USA hadn´t intervened...

 

[unmerged(14249)]

WW2 is often described as a continuation of WW1, with the Armistice being a lull in the fighting. In round 1, Germany knocked out Russia but didn't knock out France. In round 2, it was the other way round. Its problem in both cases was that it couldn't do much about the UK and its economic blockade. Napoleon had the same trouble.

Andrew

 

[unmerged(37701)]

Maybe Germany was weaker in WW2 compared to WW1, but so were their enemies. If Germany would have put all effort into defeating Britain with aircraft, subs, new naval vessels and substantially larger effort in Northern Africa, UK would have fallen. After that, I don´t think Soviet would have been able to defeat them by themself, and USA would have really trouble getting a foothold in Europe without the British Isles in friendly hands... Don´t know enough about WW1 to say much about German chances there, but I think France would have fallen in 1918 if USA hadn´t intervened...

France was not really in danger of falling in 1918 without US intervention. US troops fought well, but the bulk of the fighting, and the halting of the German offensives of spring 1918 was by British and French troops. US intervention provided a filip for the Allies' morale, but the US economic role was more important to the war's outcome than their military contribution.

 

[Darks63]

germany's chances were better in ww1 they just had some bad luck against the brits at jutland and the marne

 

[CharonJr]

With the US in the war I do not think that the Axis could have possibly won WWII.

They might have been able to knock out the SU and maybe even England, but without atomic bombs and ICBMs to deliver them, I can see no way they could have won.

Even if England could have been conquered I am fairly certain that at least some parts of GB would have continued fighting and thus providing African/Asian bases for the US. And I think that the Axis simply lacked the manpower to secure all of the potential landing zones outside of Europe to keep the US at bay in the long run.

It might have come down to a race between Germany developing the atomic bomb and ICBMs and the Allies getting a foothold in Europe again.

Another thing to keep in mind that since the beginning of the war Germany was largely dependend on plundering the countries it conquered in addition to the Jews. And since the policy was largely based on plunder and not on using those countries to support the German war effort in the long run, they would have run out of steam while the US economy would still be growing.

Some even say that Germany HAD to declare war at the end of 1939, otherwise it would have essentially been bancrupt due to the large military buildup.

CharonJr

 

[Spricar]

With the US in the war I do not think that the Axis could have possibly won WWII.

They might have been able to knock out the SU and maybe even England, but without atomic bombs and ICBMs to deliver them, I can see no way they could have won.

Even if England could have been conquered I am fairly certain that at least some parts of GB would have continued fighting and thus providing African/Asian bases for the US. And I think that the Axis simply lacked the manpower to secure all of the potential landing zones outside of Europe to keep the US at bay in the long run.

It might have come down to a race between Germany developing the atomic bomb and ICBMs and the Allies getting a foothold in Europe again.

Another thing to keep in mind that since the beginning of the war Germany was largely dependend on plundering the countries it conquered in addition to the Jews. And since the policy was largely based on plunder and not on using those countries to support the German war effort in the long run, they would have run out of steam while the US economy would still be growing.

Some even say that Germany HAD to declare war at the end of 1939, otherwise it would have essentially been bancrupt due to the large military buildup.

CharonJr

precisely . Although I don't think they had a realistic chance of knocking SU out...

But what do you think of Germany in WWI? Did they had a chance? And why, if it is quite obvious they would lost WWII in any way, is there such a myth of them nearly winning the WWII?

Another thing I forgot to mention in my fisrt post and you've brought up... Do you think it was possible that Germany would delay the start of WWII, to prepare better and maybe done it better too (with more tanks, tank divs. using mostly Pz III and Pz IV models...). Or would they lost even sooner as Allies would be probably better prepared?

 

[unmerged(37701)]

But what do you think of Germany in WWI? Did they had a chance? And why, if it is quite obvious they would lost WWII in any way, is there such a myth of them nearly winning the WWII?

Germany's best chance to win WW1 lay in knocking the French and Russians out of the war before Britain had a large enough army to make a meaningful and decisive contribution to the Western Front, and before the British blockade began to bite. Failing to do that simply leads to the events of the real-life timeline, and German defeat.

 

[Dunderdon]

I totally agree to the first poster

The Schlieffen Plan hat a slight chance of success, and also the war against Italy could have gone better (if something like 12th battle of Isonzo could have been "achieved" earlier).

About WW2, I do not think that Soviet Union was so close to falling. The planned economy proved superior, because Soviet Union managed to outproduce Germany while 40% of its territory was occupied, and with the large front since witner 40-41 Germany didn't have the perspective of ever regaining initiative on the whole front, which Soviet Union did achieve. And the Soviet Union was the key front about winning or losing the war, at least in the short term (considering that U.S could have launched a large-schaled invasion in the 50ies if SU surrendered, although I think they woulnd't have wanted to).

 

[unmerged(28147)]

France was not really in danger of falling in 1918 without US intervention. US troops fought well, but the bulk of the fighting, and the halting of the German offensives of spring 1918 was by British and French troops. US intervention provided a filip for the Allies' morale, but the US economic role was more important to the war's outcome than their military contribution.

Actually it was German commanders lack of initiative to secure the recent gains they had made that allowed the French and British to redeploy troops to counter the threat and thus the Germans began falling back because they did not secure where they had advanced, that and they dedicated alot of manpower on an assault on Amiens which stalled the rest of their offensive. Had the Germans not focused so much on taking Amiens they could have drove deeper into France and possibly surrounded Amiens. But anyways, the Germans lost because they didn't make the right decision at the time, which we now in hindsight can see was wrong.

 

[unmerged(37708)]

Even if the germans had won the war in the east (RUS) the german manpower drain in the following years would have had his efforts.....an long and bloody guerillia war would have started. I think the germans had never an chance in conquering russia focusing on long therm effects.

Germany's only chance was an strategic defence in depth streched over Poland while bulding up their infrastructure and defence against the other Allies.

If they did so in 41 i believe that they made it in Africa and eventually comquered middle east and mediteranian by the end of 41. Just look what Rommel did with an very few divisions compared to over 100 Divisions which where worn out by December 41 in an "Blitzkrieg".

Even if the Russian would have attacked in 1942 the position in the Med (Europe's soft belly) would be pretty good and an invasion would be nearly impossible for the allies.

 

[Spricar]

OK, we agree on the fact that they couldn't have win WWII. But I would like to know other things -

why is there a widespread opinion of Germany nearly wining the WWII? (it is common to believ that they really amost done it, or to put it another way, if they would 've done just one more thing they would won)

what do you think of their performance and chances in WWI ?

 

[CharonJr]

precisely . Although I don't think they had a realistic chance of knocking SU out...

But what do you think of Germany in WWI? Did they had a chance? And why, if it is quite obvious they would lost WWII in any way, is there such a myth of them nearly winning the WWII?

Another thing I forgot to mention in my fisrt post and you've brought up... Do you think it was possible that Germany would delay the start of WWII, to prepare better and maybe done it better too (with more tanks, tank divs. using mostly Pz III and Pz IV models...). Or would they lost even sooner as Allies would be probably better prepared?

My knowledge of WWI is fairly limited, but again I can not see how Germany could have been able to match the economic juggernaut of the US even in WWI. Vs the US and vs UK their only chance would have been to force them out of the war by high casualities and the likely resulting demand of the people to offer peace since neither the US nor the UK were facing any real danger of invasion in the short run (more likely for the US, less likely for the UK).

I think the myth about Germany winning WWII is largely based on the potential effect a large scale production of the "Wunderwaffen" (rockets, jet planes) could have had in addition to their overall technological and tactical superiority. Another part may be that it is actually astonishing how much they DID achieve.

I think that Germany was economically forced to start the war not much later than it actually did.

But even if they had been able to delay the start of the war I doubt that it would have helped them.

The western allies might have been less prepared compared to Germany, but the Soviet Union most likely would have gained strength at a much higher rate than Germany in the long run.

The Soviet Union actually had pretty decent tank designs already, but the keyword here is design, they were not able to really produce them in the beginning. Their officer corps would have been in a much better shape, too.

CharonJr

 

[Minodrin]

In my opinion Germany could have won the war in 1918. With the east secure, a sound plan using modern weapons might have been able to create a breaktrough somewhere on the west-front. If that would have happened, the attack might have been able to continue towards Paris, which maybe would have resulted in the French signing a white-peace atleast. Or maybe not.

Wasn't the reason for the surrender mostly that the situation at home was terrible, in economic terms?

 

[unmerged(22114)]

There's no such things as "winning" a world war really. Only possibility to win it is to conquer the world, which is simply impossible for a single country to do. Even today it would be impossible for the USA or China or any other country to completely conquer the whole world and hold it.

If Germany had played their cards a bit better they could, however, have been a lot bigger then they are today. I think countries like Denmark, Austria, (pieces of) Poland , the Benelux, and maybe even parts of France would still be german to this day. I'm just glad they didn't play their cards right.

 

[unmerged(37701)]

Wasn't the reason for the surrender mostly that the situation at home was terrible, in economic terms?

The German army had been beaten at the front too.

 

[J_Calvert]

I find it rather doubtfull that the UK would have continued the war if "The Home Isles" and Suez had been lost (or neutralized).... The ability to continue the wareffort from oversea "colonies", most important, Canada, would have been severely handicapped by the loss of the homebase. IMHO a political settlement would have been sought by the british
Had the Wehrmacht been able to muster its full potential against the SU, I think, that despite its limitations, the Wehrmacht would have succeded in delivering a cripling blow to SU´s ability to wager war in an effective manner. As in the case with the UK, a settlement would have been sought
Had these events transpired, I find it very doubtfull that Roosevelt would have been able to muster the public support for an all out intervention....
Offcourse, this is all hypothetical! and thank god things turned out differently, but IMO the potential for a german european victory by 1942 are not to be underestimated......

 

[Buggsy]

If germany would have concentrated on jet fighters, totally abandon the idea of strategic bombing and wasting resources and manpower on strategic rocket attacks (It would have taken a bomber force larger then the American strategic bomber force to wipe out Britain, America, and Russian Industry), and used the entire Russian front as one big tactical retreat area, then they might have worn down the Russians and defended their own industries against the allied strategic bombers.

The germans could have lasted long enough to form a more permanent European Union, kissing some butt, acting nice, maybe garnering more recruits from the different countries, more warm bodies to throw into the fight, maybe by 1955 they could have defeated the commies.

And in no way would the allies would have created the ICBM before 1960 without the German scientists themselves (Werner Von Braun went to America AFTER germanys defeat, no deafeat, no scientist, same with the commies). We may have had the nuke, but they had the delivery system.

 

[unmerged(34050)]

One of the key elements in WWI was the German submarine warfare against Allied shipping. It's widely believed that the U-boats came within a whisker of sinking so many UK-bound food & supply ships that the UK would've had to ask for terms. Only the implementation of the convoy system (in late 1917 I think?) prevented this. Without a beligerant UK, the German offensives of 1918 might well have finished off France before US forces could've really made a difference...

OK, we agree on the fact that they couldn't have win WWII. But I would like to know other things -

why is there a widespread opinion of Germany nearly wining the WWII? (it is common to believ that they really amost done it, or to put it another way, if they would 've done just one more thing they would won)

what do you think of their performance and chances in WWI ?

 

[unmerged(38672)]

Wasn't the reason for the surrender mostly that the situation at home was terrible, in economic terms?

So you believe in the famous "dagger in the back"-legend that Hitler was so keen of?