Germany in WWI vs. WWII

[unmerged(24902)]

Many people don't realize that in 1941 Moscow was THE major rail connection between the north and south in european Russia.

Had it fallen it's very likely that Germany would've prevailed on that simple fact alone. Include the propaganda windfall and the huge morale boost that the fall of Moscow would've given the Germans (most likely it would've had the exact opposite effect on the Soviet's at the same time) and history could quite easily have been much different.

Anyone who's studied the Battle of Stalingrad must see how close the Soviet's came to collapse a full year later.

Had Moscow fallen in 1941 it would've been "game over".

I couldn't agree with you more.

Theres a reason why France surrendered in 1940, with their army destroyed and their capital fallen the situation appeared hopeless. Why does everyone assume that Russians are superhuman and that given the same situations would fight on till the last man. You actually think anyone supported Stalin, they were just scared of him, seeing what his rule has brought them he would have been overthrown (He even thought he would be forced to resign when Barbarossa began). If Moscow falls, Stalin falls. If Stalin falls, communism falls, if communism falls then thats the main war aim for the Germans completed. They can set-up a puppet state ala Vichy and take a bit of Lebensarum and go home. They don't need nor want to fight all the way through siberia.

And anyone that thinks that America is going to come to the rescue and save the world has been watching a few too many Hollywood films. They only joined cause they were attacked, can you really see the isolantionist American population supporting a war unless forced to or have an extremely good reason. Why do you assume the would join if Sealion was successful, did they when France was invaded?

Given the decisions made if WWII was replayed 10 times you would see German victory of some sorts in at least 7/10.

 

[Braedonnal]

I wouldn't say that Germany had won WW1 by 1917; she looked to be getting the upper hand, but she hadn't won. After all, she never forced the Allies to the negotiating table; perhaps the best chance of that was targetting British shipping, and that chance evaporated once the British empolyed convoys.

If by Allies, you mean Britain, then maybe. The problem with your theory is completely obvious in that by targetting British shipping there would eventually be an incident as was historical and the US would become involved.

The best chance to defeat the Entente was to force France out of the war. It was a possibility in early 1917 (well, not really) but US intervention in 1917 effectively ruined that idea. Thus, the race was on to see if a German offensive could knock France out of the war and the British off the continent before American manpower could make itself felt. Of course, waiting until 1918 simply ensured that the Americans had time to form up and while the bulk of the offensive was stopped by Anglo-French armies, an insignificent forest saw the first use of American troops in the war.

It is interesting to read German comments of their foes. General Bohm said, "An American success along our front, even if only temporary, may have the most unfavorable influence on the atititude of the Entente and the duration of the war. In the coming battles, therefore, it is not a question of the possession of this or that vaillage or woods...it is a question of whatever the claim that the American Army is the equal or even superior of the German Army is to be made good."

After battle reports from the battle by von Conta's staff said the following, "The personnel must be called excellent...a very good division, if not [in the sense of 'possibly even'] an assault division...attacks of the marines carried out smartly and ruthlessly. The moral (sic) effect of our fire did not materially check the advance of the infantry. The nerves of the Americans are still unshaken."

Not too shabby for previously untried troops. I really must say I am amused when I read comments by certain authors claiming the AEF was inept.

 

[unmerged(28147)]

If by Allies, you mean Britain, then maybe. The problem with your theory is completely obvious in that by targetting British shipping there would eventually be an incident as was historical and the US would become involved.

The best chance to defeat the Entente was to force France out of the war. It was a possibility in early 1917 (well, not really) but US intervention in 1917 effectively ruined that idea. Thus, the race was on to see if a German offensive could knock France out of the war and the British off the continent before American manpower could make itself felt. Of course, waiting until 1918 simply ensured that the Americans had time to form up and while the bulk of the offensive was stopped by Anglo-French armies, an insignificent forest saw the first use of American troops in the war.

It is interesting to read German comments of their foes. General Bohm said, "An American success along our front, even if only temporary, may have the most unfavorable influence on the atititude of the Entente and the duration of the war. In the coming battles, therefore, it is not a question of the possession of this or that vaillage or woods...it is a question of whatever the claim that the American Army is the equal or even superior of the German Army is to be made good."

After battle reports from the battle by von Conta's staff said the following, "The personnel must be called excellent...a very good division, if not [in the sense of 'possibly even'] an assault division...attacks of the marines carried out smartly and ruthlessly. The moral (sic) effect of our fire did not materially check the advance of the infantry. The nerves of the Americans are still unshaken."

Not too shabby for previously untried troops. I really must say I am amused when I read comments by certain authors claiming the AEF was inept.

I find a good movie to demonstrate American "Ineptitude" in WWI is "The Lost Battalion", very well written.

 

[unmerged(37786)]

On Germany's chances to win the war

Once Barbarossa started, I think it was in many ways lost.

Too much of a big bite.

Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, any of this would stop the will of people defending their (very inhospitable) land against someone wanting to reduce your people to quasi-slavery. I guess we would all fight harder if our enemy would, and could, reduce us to slavery.

The Red Army was awefully led during the first (and even second) year, yet none of those three cities was taken. Russia had space. And the Wermacht still in large part pulled by horses.

A country only needs the time, and space, to get a large experienced army going. The Red Army painfully learned this (destroying some 70-80% of the Wermacht in the process), like the Allied had to do in Normandy in 1944.

Unfortunately, France in 1940 didn't have the space and time to do so.

The Moscow counter-offensive started several days (Dec. 5th 1941) before the German declaration of war to the United States. Maybe Germans in a burned-out Moscow in Dec. 1941 would only have meant more prisoners after the counter-offensive.

The Wermacht was stopped By Soviets. The best that they could hope for after was a protacted war. What happened after was only the unfolding of the inevitable.

Even at Stalingrad, over 95% of the rolling stock was Russian (R. Overy, Russia's War).

 

[Braedonnal]

I find a good movie to demonstrate American "Ineptitude" in WWI is "The Lost Battalion", very well written.

I'll give it a look though I say bah to movies. I was rather hoping for some specific cases. I mean, such a claim has got to come from somewhere.

 

[ottomaton]

And anyone that thinks that America is going to come to the rescue and save the world has been watching a few too many Hollywood films.

Actually, there's a pretty interesting point here (that you probably didn't intend). Hollywood was pushing hard for war against Germany.

The first film that come to mind quickly are Sergeant York with Gary Cooper, which austensibly tells the tale of a WWI pacifist who eventually puts that aside and goes on to win the congressional medal of honor (of course all the Germans are wearing WWII uniforms).

Another would be The Mortal Storm with Jimmy Stewart about the horror of living in German annexed Austria.

The third would be The Fighting 69th with James Cagney.

Most of Alfred Hitchcock's pre-WWII American movies had an anti-Nazi themes, usually involving secret agents trying to steal vital information or commit sabatoge.

I'm sure there are more I'm forgeting or haven't seen.

These movies, all before US involvement in WWII, are all about prepairing people to think about war with Germany and be patriotic Americans. They strike the same tone as, say, Cassablanca which came out in 1942, durring the early days of US involvement in the war and was mostly concieved during a state of war.

Clearly Hollywood thought war was ineviatable, or they were trying to make it seem so. I don't think it's ineviatable that the US would have stayed on the sidelines without Pearl Harbor.

 

[unmerged(18027)]

If you substitute "inexperienced" for "inept" than the AEF absolutely qualifies. In their first battle they were supported by French, not American, artillery, and suffered massive 1914 level casualties. Also, they were trained by French and British officers once they arrived in France. The Americans were brave, but had little experience in the tactics the Allies were using that had allowed them to avoid the horrendous casualties of '14 and continue fielding armies.

What's always struck me about Germany is that they have always realized they needed to sturck a bold, swift, and devastating knockout blow on a particular enemy, yet end up shying away from doing so. In WW1 the Schlieffin plan called for all available men on the right flank. Its enormously successful initially, but the Germans authorize Rupprecht to launch an offensive on the left when the plan calls for a withdrawal to draw in French troops. Even more damning, the Germans withdraw strength from their advancing Schlieffin hook to ship east to save imperiled East Prussia - troops which were not present at the Marne. Some of this has to do with individuals but it also reflects on the fact that the Germans are human too - when the French look like they are whipped, they assume they are, and don't pull everything together for the clinching knockout blow.

A similar attitude prevailed in WW2 I think. Hitler delays converting the economy towards total war because the Germans are doing so well in '40, despite the fact he still has a well armed ideological enemy staring him in the face to the east. He tells army group center to wait for weeks in front of Moscow because the invasion is going so well that they are ahed of the other lines, instead of going for the knockout blow. Some of this is just Hitler but yet without him the Germans don't get Czechslovakia and Austria for free and probably don't get through France nearly scotfree. Again, the Germans are human enough to bask in the glory of victory when they should be gritting their teeth for the final blow.

I really think the ultimate failure of Germany in WW1 and WW2 was diplomatic, not military. Their military in terms of tactics and grand strategy was superior to their foes: where they failed was in having too many enemies to fight all at once. Its amazing on the face of it to think that German diplomacy and strategy was so bad in WW1 as to bring in the USA, thousands of miles away and in 1914 in no way willing to be involved. Occupation policy in Belgium + poorly thought out submarine warfare implications meant they simply had too many enemies. I think you can argue that with a decent policy towards Russia's Ukraine Germany's food problems are minor (the situation after the '16-'17 harvest did improve somewhat after all, and the blockade didn't get <really> nasty till the big 'ole neutral America jumped on board), and that she has a fair chance at forcing a stalemate. In WW2 Austria and Munich showed that the Germans could succeed at winning territory - they just went for too much at once, and Poland was the straw that broke the camel's back. If Germany is more patient, perhaps she ends up as the dominant power in Europe but in a more subtle fashion.

Overall, I think the Germans in WW1/2 are a classic case of hubris : they ended up falling because of their own propoganda. To assume that they would have won WW2 or 1 more times than not I think you have to assume they are consistently better than human were other nations are just human - ultimately, that wasn't the case.

 

[Dracleath]

There is simply no way germany could have won WWII in any meaningful way.

Sealion wasn't going to happen before 1942 at the earliest. It would have been a massive undertaking that would have involved building of landing craft, a navy to defend them, training of infantry units for amphibious operations (in 1940 exactly no one in the wermacht had any amphibious training at all), and still would have been an iffy proposition. The germans did testing on this in 1940 with thier equipment at that time and found that the boats they had availible capable of carrying men were not worthy of channel navigation, and would be sunk by virtually any bad weather or even the wake of a large ship. They had no capacity for carrying heavy equipment at all. Zero. This includes armor.

So germany spends two to three years preparing for an invasion of Britain. Do they still do Barbarosa? Where do they get the troops to invade Britain then? Do they abandon barbarosa? What happens then when instead of invading a surprised russia they instead face a russia that has had three to four years to industrialize and prepare?

Or what if they ignore Russia and the US and are content with a victory against the UK, either by Sealion or the UK peacing out earlier? 10 years go by, and Germany is faced with one superpower with nuclear weapons, and another on their doorstep that's much more dangerous than it was in 1941. Germany becomes a second rate power in an alternate cold war world still ruled by the US and USSR.


Ok, well, then what if they'd taken moscow? Why should we expect the Russians to react differently to this than they'd been reacting to the drastic defeats that had occured up to that point. Trade land for more time and spread the Germans out more. What's the other option? A still largely intact Red Army just surrenders outright? Germany installs a puppet goverment? Ok, then Germany has to use it's entire army to occupy Russia and can't put up any more resistance to a US invasion than they did in real life. If they pull back out of Russia to defend Europe, you end up with the second russian revolution, whatever puppets they installed being shot in Red Square, and a loss again on that front. And even with all that, all that Russian industry east of the Urals is still intact. Germany just doesn't have the manpower to enforce a peace on Russia while still defending Europe.

And when 1945 comes around, the US gets nukes, and Germany has to deal with that.

Or what if D-Day fails? Russians win in the east, take Europe, game over.


The best Germany can do in WWII is end up with a hegemony over continental Europe with a still intact Soviet Union and US. If that's a win, fine, but I don't think being a second-rate power in a world ruled by the two superpowers was really what hitler had in mind.

 

[unmerged(37701)]

If by Allies, you mean Britain, then maybe. The problem with your theory is completely obvious in that by targetting British shipping there would eventually be an incident as was historical and the US would become involved.

The best chance to defeat the Entente was to force France out of the war. It was a possibility in early 1917 (well, not really) but US intervention in 1917 effectively ruined that idea. Thus, the race was on to see if a German offensive could knock France out of the war and the British off the continent before American manpower could make itself felt. Of course, waiting until 1918 simply ensured that the Americans had time to form up and while the bulk of the offensive was stopped by Anglo-French armies, an insignificent forest saw the first use of American troops in the war.

I take your point about Germany possibly having a btter chance of knocking France out of the war; however, in reality they attempted this at Verdun, and failed. After this, I'm not convinced that knocking the western Alies out on the battlefiled was ever that realistic a goal. Whereas with regard to the Atlantic, the Germans came within a few weeks of forcing Britain to the peace table. And no Britain means that France cannot win the war. Yes, we can see that targetting British shipping is morel likely to lead to incidents that can lead to American intervention. However, if the Germans had knocked the British out before American intervention becomes meaningful (bearing in mind that the US entered the war in April 1917, and still hadn't committed massive forces to combat by the armistice) then such an American entry into the war would become a moot point. As an aside, how likely would American intervention have been without the Zimmerman telegram?

 

[unmerged(37701)]

Speaking of an alliance with Japan, why didn't Germany form an alliance with Japan prior to WWI? Both shared the same rivals, Russia and the British Empire. And both had conflicting interests AFAIK, so there would be a great deal of potential for coordination.

Which leads me to the question what would have happened if the Axis powers had actually worked together during WWII? Each seemed to be pursuing its own interests, Germany in Russia, Italy in the Mediterranian and Japan in the Asian Pacific. What would would have happened with the Soviet Union if both Germany and Japan had coordinated their attacks? The Soviets would have faced a two front war giving the Germans and Japanese a good chance of defeating them.

Because up until the early 1920s, Britain had a treaty with Japan. Effectively, security of the British Empire in the far-east was sublet to the Japanese.

 

[Kung Karl]

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 ?

If they Germans never had any real chance of winning the war, why make a game about it. Only one side could win it then???

I do belive that they could have won. Had the SU fallen then now way on earth could the allies beat the Germans. In 1944 when the allies invaded Germany had lost the war, it made no diffrence for the Germans. The allies in 1944 just had to save western europe from the soviets. The germans were already defeated.

Now think if there had been some extra Waffen-SS divisoins in Normandy then the US soldiers hadn't set their foot in Europe. And, believe me, if the SU had surrendered the germans would have had many crack divisions to set in against the allies.

Just compare the amount of divions the allies landed in Normandy compared to those the Germans had at the east front. Just a few of the german divisions in the east could have thrown the allies back into the sea. Also, had the the SU lost in 1941 or 1942 then the allies had not have air supperiority since the luftwaffe could have been switched to the west. The U-Boat production had increased too. Basically the allies had been crushed.

 

[Feanaaro]

If they Germans never had any real chance of winning the war, why make a game about it. Only one side could win it then???

It's a game with a lot of efforts spent on historical accuracy... not a game TOTALLY accurate. And, indeed, i tink that ineptitude of AI ha some role in your chance to win as Germany... If you play against an equally good player as you are, you with Germany, he with USA or Urss... let's try to win...
Also, the entire destructive aptitude of the Nazis isn't considered at all in the game.

 

[unmerged(17767)]

Ok, well, then what if they'd taken moscow? Why should we expect the Russians to react differently to this than they'd been reacting to the drastic defeats that had occured up to that point. Trade land for more time and spread the Germans out more. What's the other option? A still largely intact Red Army just surrenders outright? Germany installs a puppet goverment? Ok, then Germany has to use it's entire army to occupy Russia and can't put up any more resistance to a US invasion than they did in real life. If they pull back out of Russia to defend Europe, you end up with the second russian revolution, whatever puppets they installed being shot in Red Square, and a loss again on that front. And even with all that, all that Russian industry east of the Urals is still intact. Germany just doesn't have the manpower to enforce a peace on Russia while still defending Europe.

This ignores the fragile nature of Stalin's government in the early part of the war. I suggest reading "The Second World War" by John Keegan as he has some interesting insights into the Soviet government at the start of the war.

 

[Dracleath]

This ignores the fragile nature of Stalin's government in the early part of the war. I suggest reading "The Second World War" by John Keegan as he has some interesting insights into the Soviet government at the start of the war.

Even if Stalin is ousted, there's still the red army, the Russians went through 3 governments during WWI and still only ended up losing Belarus. I don't really see why just because stalin is gone a replacement government is going to give up half of Russia in a surrender. They knew what was going on in the Ukraine, are all those soldiers just going to put down their guns and go home to a Nazi occupied Russia? And if so again Germany has to occupy Russia, a task taking almost as much manpower as taking it in the first place (Just ask the Americans in Iraq how easy occupying a large country with a hostile population is. More troops are there now than were there to take the country in the first place). And if Germany settles for a Brest-Litovsk like treaty and just takes, say, belarus and the baltic states, you're back to the scenario where 10 years from then Russia is back on its feet with more manpower than Germany and more industry than Germany.

I don't see the Germans ending up with anything better than a WWI type peace at best, and in the long run that just isn't good enough. Again, technically winning the war, but ending up as the weak side of a tripolar cold war in the aftermath.

 

[Kung Karl]

It's a game with a lot of efforts spent on historical accuracy... not a game TOTALLY accurate. And, indeed, i tink that ineptitude of AI ha some role in your chance to win as Germany... If you play against an equally good player as you are, you with Germany, he with USA or Urss... let's try to win...
Also, the entire destructive aptitude of the Nazis isn't considered at all in the game.

Well, I was just sarcastic and funny. The main part of my argument was the rest of my post. If the soviets had surrendered in 1941 or 1942 the western allies had no chance of winning the war by them self...

 

[Kung Karl]

Even if Stalin is ousted, there's still the red army, the Russians went through 3 governments during WWI and still only ended up losing Belarus. I don't really see why just because stalin is gone a replacement government is going to give up half of Russia in a surrender. They knew what was going on in the Ukraine, are all those soldiers just going to put down their guns and go home to a Nazi occupied Russia? And if so again Germany has to occupy Russia, a task taking almost as much manpower as taking it in the first place (Just ask the Americans in Iraq how easy occupying a large country with a hostile population is. More troops are there now than were there to take the country in the first place). And if Germany settles for a Brest-Litovsk like treaty and just takes, say, belarus and the baltic states, you're back to the scenario where 10 years from then Russia is back on its feet with more manpower than Germany and more industry than Germany.

I don't see the Germans ending up with anything better than a WWI type peace at best, and in the long run that just isn't good enough. Again, technically winning the war, but ending up as the weak side of a tripolar cold war in the aftermath.

Well, without leadership, I don't see how those soldiers without weapons would defeat Germany...

 

[Dracleath]

Oh look, the Czar just got overthrown, how are the Russians without leadership going to defeat the Polish and deal with Allied expiditionary forces and reconquer Georgia, Ukraine, etc? Stalin wasn't going to just go shoot himself, if someone gained enough power to knock him off it isn't unreasonable to think that the army wouldn't support them.



Germany has only 2 possible outcomes here.

1. Defeat the Red Army completely, occupy Russia.
2. Go home (perhaps with a token peace settlement in the process, like belarus and the baltics).


1 would stretch the german army impossibly thin, as at this point a significant part of the Russian industrial base was east of the Urals. The Germans were at the end of their supply lines already at Moscow and Stalingrad, and Moscow is only about half way from the Polish border to the Urals. There was still plenty of land left to trade for time.

2 is a long term loss, any peace treaty with any chance of success of being accepted by the Russians leaves the Russians in an equal or superior position 10 years down the road.

I find it hard to believe that someone in Russia would be capable of ousting Stalin early in the war yet somehow be completely incapable of organizing an adequate resistance against germany. And even in a total collapse, occupying Russia isn't like occupying France. At some point you simply run out of Germans.

 

[unmerged(1972)]

And if so again Germany has to occupy Russia, a task taking almost as much manpower as taking it in the first place (Just ask the Americans in Iraq how easy occupying a large country with a hostile population is. More troops are there now than were there to take the country in the first place). And if Germany settles for a Brest-Litovsk like treaty and just takes, say, belarus and the baltic states, you're back to the scenario where 10 years from then Russia is back on its feet with more manpower than Germany and more industry than Germany.

I agree with the basic ideas of your post, but think about it this way: In 1944 Germany has most of her third line troops along the Atlantic Wall, because her crack troops are needed on the eastern front. If the Soviet Union surrenders in some form, the situation would be reversed. Imagine Operation Overlord against battle-hardened eastern front veterans, it would've been a nightmare, even if just a few more divisions were deployed than was the case in reality. There would've been a higher ratio of tank units there also, since they wouldn't be much use in fighting partisans.

Frankly -- as stated earlier -- the Americans and Brits didn't have the taste for a bloody grind. If the Soviets are out of the war I don't think we see any significant landings.

As to your second point, almost the entire Soviet Union population was located west of the Urals. Depending on how much land the Germans got, they could've taken a big slice of it. If they kicked them out and sent them east, of course it would still bolster the Soviets, but they would've had serious problems keeping them all fed given that the food production also was in the western lands. Even today many Siberians (including those transplanted there by Russian colonization programs since the days of the Tsar) are living in abject poverty, totally dependent on the aid they get from the western part of the country.

 

[Dracleath]

True, but I honestly don't see any possible Russian government at the time accepting a peace giving up more than Belarus, the Baltics, and maybe the Ukraine and Chechnya/Azerbaijan. I really don't see the germans taking any of ethnic Russia, I just don't think such a thing would ever be on the table short of taking the entirity of Russia west of the Urals, which was still a tall order even at the height of their expansion. As the Germans go deeper into Russia, the Germans get weaker and the Russian advantage increases, just because of supply line concerns. I honestly don't think they could have afforded to run another 600 miles afield to take everything up to the Urals.

So again, a minor victory is possible, leaving Germany in possession of a hedgemony of continental Europe excluding Italy, but in the end Germany is half the size in population of even Russia proper and a third of the size of the US, and there's little reason to believe that sattelite state in say France,Austria, or Eastern Europe would be any more use than the eastern european states were to Russia in the cold war, so they lose out in the cold war in the end as the US and Russia ascend to their RL cold war status.

 

[unmerged(17228)]

It all really depends on whether England is capable of being used as a base to invade Europe by the Western Allies. I came in late, here, so I don't know what the situation were are discussing is. If the UK and the USA had air superiority and were still pummeling Germany when the Germans defeated the Soviets, they could launch Operation Overlord while Germany is finishing off the Soviet Union or is starting to shift its troops to the Atlantic Wall. If the Allies got firmly situated in Normandy, it would have been very hard to dislodge them, although there would be no wild, careless rush across France with the Ost Front troops on the way to the west. It would just end up as a stalement, with the Allies taking at most half of France. The Germans could easily hold off the Allies in central Italy, and then possibly even throw them back into the Med. That'd be a crushing blow. But, even if they didn't, the Germans could still eventually break through with Panzers and toss the Overlord (and the forces in southern France, if that invasion occured) forces back into the Atlantic. America and England would not be able to recover for a few years. Even if the Americans had atomic bombs, they would not be able to change the war. With a fanatic like Hitler or Himmler (or anyone, really, the entire German government is going to be pretty confident after defeating the Soviet Union, no matter how many major German cities are nuked) in command, he'd just keep switching capitols. Plus, America would have a tough time scrounging up enough uranium and the like to build more nuclear bombs. And, after nukes were being used on Germany, you think that Hitler wouldn't start pushing forward in his own nuclear program? It wouldn't be as significant as the Manhattan Project, of course, but England does not exactly have as much nukable land as Germany. While all of this is going on, the Germans would have definetly secured oil resources in the Middle East, the Caucasus, etc. and would have been able to mass-produce jet fighters and jet fighter-bombers, to take back control of the skies, and then use them to his advantage. Had the Germans been able to contest or take control of the skies, I feel that Overlord would have never even taken place. If it had, it would have been much bloodier than it was in history.