WW2 Scenario Germany

XaNDeR

New Member
Let us talk about a scenario ..

Its 2. September 1939 , and 1 day before Germany started invading Poland , you are leader of Germany , and it is your decision to draw the war from this point on.
What will you do? How will you continue , what will you do different than Germany did , would you switch your economy to military economy already? What tehnology would you give priority to develop , and furthermore how would you lead the war from this point on so you don't make tactical mistakes as Germany did.
How would you act politicaly , economicaly and lead your army from that point?
 

Brycec

New Member
Retrospect is a great thing. We have to remember that looking back it's easy to say "Well I think the first stage would be to stay the hell away from Russia..." or something simiar; but the lead up to the war was all about blaming Russia, France and Britain for all of Germany's problems (As well as the Jews etc from the inside.)
Hitler took down France in a little over a month. Britain was virtually out of the war soon after they evacuated mainland Europe, (And it seems that apart from the Luftwaffe, Germany was happy to let the Italians take on Britain in the deserts of North Africa.)
The logical next step was to turn around and open up a new front in the East, against the old enemy Russia.

In short: The Blitzkreig steamrolled Europe. I wouldn't change anything before the defeat of France. As per Russia. It was too big for the Blitzkrieg to work. Hence, I would go for a result similar to that which the Germans got from WWI. I would make it clear that my army was completely superior by pushing into Russia (stopping short of any dangerous cities to fight for,) and driving for a peace treaty which would gain us heaps of land and which we could turn (via propaganda) into a glorious victory in the eyes of the German people.

I'm not completely sure what the deal was with Britain... whether Germany expected them to surrender or what, but I definately would back off, making sure that Britain knew we didn't want to invade.

Having said all this, there wasn't much you could do once the Americans got involved. (In all honesty I would still have made an alliance with Japan.) If my plan to make peace with Russia had worked out, I might have enough troops to hold the Western front, but I doubt it.
 

XaNDeR

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Retrospect is a great thing. We have to remember that looking back it's easy to say "Well I think the first stage would be to stay the hell away from Russia..." or something simiar; but the lead up to the war was all about blaming Russia, France and Britain for all of Germany's problems (As well as the Jews etc from the inside.)
Hitler took down France in a little over a month. Britain was virtually out of the war soon after they evacuated mainland Europe, (And it seems that apart from the Luftwaffe, Germany was happy to let the Italians take on Britain in the deserts of North Africa.)
The logical next step was to turn around and open up a new front in the East, against the old enemy Russia.

In short: The Blitzkreig steamrolled Europe. I wouldn't change anything before the defeat of France. As per Russia. It was too big for the Blitzkrieg to work. Hence, I would go for a result similar to that which the Germans got from WWI. I would make it clear that my army was completely superior by pushing into Russia (stopping short of any dangerous cities to fight for,) and driving for a peace treaty which would gain us heaps of land and which we could turn (via propaganda) into a glorious victory in the eyes of the German people.

I'm not completely sure what the deal was with Britain... whether Germany expected them to surrender or what, but I definately would back off, making sure that Britain knew we didn't want to invade.

Having said all this, there wasn't much you could do once the Americans got involved. (In all honesty I would still have made an alliance with Japan.) If my plan to make peace with Russia had worked out, I might have enough troops to hold the Western front, but I doubt it.

Just 1 thing , id change 1 big thing in France invasion , and that is I would never let the Brits escape from dunkirque.
Not attacking Soviet Union is a pretty good idea , however what would you concentrate on after France? UK? Would you do Sea Lion or would you do the same ?
I would rather concentrate on UK airfields , when Germany started attacking London and other big city's that was a huge mistake because RAF was close to defeat if they continue to attack the airfields..
 

Chrom

New Member
In short: The Blitzkreig steamrolled Europe. I wouldn't change anything before the defeat of France. As per Russia. It was too big for the Blitzkrieg to work. Hence, I would go for a result similar to that which the Germans got from WWI. I would make it clear that my army was completely superior by pushing into Russia (stopping short of any dangerous cities to fight for,) and driving for a peace treaty which would gain us heaps of land and which we could turn (via propaganda) into a glorious victory in the eyes of the German people.

ubt it.
So, you basicaly want to execute the WW2 up to about september 1941, and then make a peace with Russia. Probably Germany could retain Ukraine and Belorrussia in that case. There is however 1 big problem - USSR will not leave it that way. Most likely around 1943 or 1944 USSR would attack Germany, now with much superior forces, with full ally (USA, Britain,) support. The final outcome would be exactly the same, and probably even in the same timeframe...

On Hitlers place i would not mess with Russia at all. I would grab the rest of Europe and then capture GB. Without eastern front all resources could be relocated to aviation and navy - combined industrial might of whole united europe against tiny GB isles will not leave much chances for UK to survive.
After UK fall i would let 3rd Reich to prosper. Basically, we would see EU 50 years earler...
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
For global dominance they were doomed from the start because of 4 reasons:

1. Not enough industrial base
2. Did not have a long range bomber
3. Did not have a large enough surface fleet
4. Could not convince Japan to assist in a Russian invasion
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
So, you basicaly want to execute the WW2 up to about september 1941, and then make a peace with Russia. Probably Germany could retain Ukraine and Belorrussia in that case. There is however 1 big problem - USSR will not leave it that way. Most likely around 1943 or 1944 USSR would attack Germany, now with much superior forces, with full ally (USA, Britain,) support. The final outcome would be exactly the same, and probably even in the same timeframe...
I would of given the defeat figure to the beginning of 1947 if the German debacles of the likes of Stalingrad and Kursk did not happen.
 

Chrom

New Member
For global dominance they were doomed from the start because of 4 reasons:

1. Not enough industrial base
2. Did not have a long range bomber
3. Did not have a large enough surface fleet
4. Could not convince Japan to assist in a Russian invasion
All these points would be fullfiled after successfull Europe conquer. 1941 - building EU, 1942-43 - bulding airfoce/navy, end 1943 - 1944 - finishing GB.
 

Chrom

New Member
I would of given the defeat figure to the beginning of 1947 if the German debacles of the likes of Stalingrad and Kursk did not happen.
Atacking is always easer than defending, and STRATEGICALY require less forces. Given some preparation USSR certainly could defeat Germany - just as in reality. You should just understand what without Stalingrad and Kursk, and more importantly without 2 years constant war USSR would be much, much stronger than in reality. So there could be well another blitzkrieg - now against Germany.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
First thing i would do is not invade poland. The simple fact is that that when you invade poland you go to war with britan. Frace can and was defeated, but given the strength of the RN there is no way the germans could have defeted the british in a reasonable timeframe. If they had no other obligations and no massive threat from the soviet union they could have geared a large ammount of war production to commercial warfare assets such as MPA's and U boats. Enough to cripple the UK economicly and get them to come to the table. Invasion of england was never an option due to the strength of the RN, maybe in 1950 after 10 years of peace. The time this would have taken would have allowed the Soviets to gain enough strength to take the germans on in eastern europe. As long as the soviet threat existed, sufficient R&D and military output could not be brough to bear on the british sea lanes. Bid of a catch 22. So to aviod this i would not go to war with the western allies. This wasn't an option for hitler who's objective was vengance for the first war and the humiliation of versallies, but it is for me.

So i would back down from the Danzig crisis and start dealing with France and the UK. At this point that would not be easy as both france and the Uk were gearing up for war, but with large pasifist feelings in their civilian population caused by the horrific cost of the first war both countries would jump at a chance for peace.

Over the next 2~3 years i would launch a large propaganda and diplomatic campaign in the west concerning the threat of the soviets and the portraying germany as the west's bullwalk between them and the communists. This would include abolishment of all jewish operession and all of the anti jewish stuff. This campaign would include the US which had a large isloationist lobby, without a war with the western allies the US would not interviene in a war with the russians, except on our side. The whole objective of this dialog with the west would be first decreasing tensions in western europe, 2nd economic, military and political cooperation with the western allies, 3rd a coalition against the soviets. The third ones the kicker and it would take some real swindling to achieve that, as the sllies may be content to sit back and watch their two enemies beat each other to death. To overcome this the agressiveness of the soviets and their huge military would need to be continually stressed in the western media and across the conference table. The thought of soviet armies sitting on the rhine should be enough to get the french to commit if such a war happened. If we could get the French and possibly british directly envolved in a war with the soviets, and the US to stay nuetral (possibly on our side). During these two years I would continue rearmament on as large a scale as possible, using the soviets as an excuse for the allies. the sucsessfull diplomatic campaign (that actually occured) in the balkans i would (hopefully) emulate with hungary, romania, bulgaria and slovakia in an alliance with germany. Poland would be a BONUS but i wouldnt count on it. If the russians made a move they might come running but i doubt it. And hopefully by 1942 by would be ready for war with the russians, with the french and british on our side (or at least not helping the russians but us with materiel) and the americans minding their own buisiness.

The lessons of poland and france would not have been leaned which would hurt our combat effectiveness but that would have a silver lining. Hopefully we would not be so over confident. During our 2-3 years i would winter proof our formations (as much as possible) and expect a multi year campaign in eastern europe and russia. And with (hopefully) french support i would go at it with the russians in either the late spring of 1941 or 1942, depending on which way the diplomatic winds were blowing. Without US aid, especially trucks, the russians would have a very hard time, especially with french (and maybe british) armies in the field with the germans who wouldnt be expecting a 6 week victory, but still using blitzkreig tactics.

If the frenchies didn't go for it, then the whole german war effort could be concentrated against the soviets who would still be international leppers with no international aid.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Atacking is always easer than defending, and STRATEGICALY require less forces. Given some preparation USSR certainly could defeat Germany - just as in reality. You should just understand what without Stalingrad and Kursk, and more importantly without 2 years constant war USSR would be much, much stronger than in reality. So there could be well another blitzkrieg - now against Germany.
If you look at both Stalingrad and Kursk, they played a key importance of destroying the Germans conquest of Russia.

1. Stalingrad demoralized them severely
2. Kursk destroyed major armored resources that the Germans could never hope to regain
 
Last edited:

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
All these points would be fullfiled after successfull Europe conquer. 1941 - building EU, 1942-43 - bulding airfoce/navy, end 1943 - 1944 - finishing GB.
Maybe Western Europe just short of England and thats about it, they should of had everything covered from the start.

England had the U.S for a industrialized base.

Naval power was on the side of England from the very start.

Lets add manpower, the U.S and Russia would of bled them dry, Russia almost did it herself alone.
 
Last edited:

Chrom

New Member
If you look at both Stalingrad and Kursk, they played a key importance of destroying the Germans conquest of Russia.

1. Stalingrad demoralized them severely
2. Kursk destroyed major armored resources that the Germans could never hope to regain
There would be another Stalingrad and another Kursk. With much better prepared and much better equipped USSR army.
 

Chrom

New Member
Maybe Western Europe just short of England and thats about it, they should of had everything covered from the start.

England had the U.S for a industrialized base.

Naval naval power was on the side of England from the very start.

Lets add manpower, the U.S and Russia would of bled them dry, Russia almost did it herself alone.
That is why Germany should have never attacked USSR. Without easern front what consumed most german resources 3rd Reich could successfully attack GB. In absolutely worst case GB would remain independend - with the rest of Europe under Hitler control.
 

Manfred2

New Member
Ozzy had the most interesting post, but you forgot one thing;
It doesn't matter if it was Sept 2nd. or the day before the war (August 31st) the treaty with Stalin was in effect... and Germany was comitted to invading Poland... and splitting it with Russia.

The strength of Britain and France's reaction was a surprise to Berlin, but an arms race had already started that Germany could not win. An early war was the only chance they had to follow the course outlined by the Nazi Political leaders.

Hindsight is 20/20... so I will try to stick to what I would have seen from that perspective.
I would have given top priority to U-boats from day one. I would also have tried to persuade Stalin to invade Persia and India the same month I attacked France. I even would have "lent" them a dozen German Divisions to ride along, to cover the Western flank of such an attack. It is a known fact the Iraq would have welcomed the Nazis with open arms.

By 1941, Britain would be safely isolated, and a huge portion of the Soviet Army would be mired in India, giving Barbarossa a much better chance of success and diminishing the chance of Yugoslavia becoming an issue at all.

Italy could have been persuaded to attempt to drive through Egypt rather than Greece, to reach their outpost in Etheopia before one of thier allies did.

Of course, this is all hypothetical nonsense.
All the Nazis would have had to do to win the war was treat the people they conquered in a reasonably human way. But then... they would not have been the kind of people who would start such an improbable war in the first place.

Round and round it goes...
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Ozzy had the most interesting post, but you forgot one thing;
It doesn't matter if it was Sept 2nd. or the day before the war (August 31st) the treaty with Stalin was in effect... and Germany was comitted to invading Poland... and splitting it with Russia.

The strength of Britain and France's reaction was a surprise to Berlin, but an arms race had already started that Germany could not win. An early war was the only chance they had to follow the course outlined by the Nazi Political leaders.

Hindsight is 20/20... so I will try to stick to what I would have seen from that perspective.
I would have given top priority to U-boats from day one. I would also have tried to persuade Stalin to invade Persia and India the same month I attacked France. I even would have "lent" them a dozen German Divisions to ride along, to cover the Western flank of such an attack. It is a known fact the Iraq would have welcomed the Nazis with open arms.

By 1941, Britain would be safely isolated, and a huge portion of the Soviet Army would be mired in India, giving Barbarossa a much better chance of success and diminishing the chance of Yugoslavia becoming an issue at all.

Italy could have been persuaded to attempt to drive through Egypt rather than Greece, to reach their outpost in Etheopia before one of thier allies did.

Of course, this is all hypothetical nonsense.
All the Nazis would have had to do to win the war was treat the people they conquered in a reasonably human way. But then... they would not have been the kind of people who would start such an improbable war in the first place.

Round and round it goes...
You hit a good point inregards to the way they handled some of the populations, especially in Russia where most of the population feared and hated Stalin, including his military.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Ozzy had the most interesting post, but you forgot one thing;
It doesn't matter if it was Sept 2nd. or the day before the war (August 31st) the treaty with Stalin was in effect... and Germany was comitted to invading Poland... and splitting it with Russia.

The strength of Britain and France's reaction was a surprise to Berlin, but an arms race had already started that Germany could not win. An early war was the only chance they had to follow the course outlined by the Nazi Political leaders.

Hindsight is 20/20... so I will try to stick to what I would have seen from that perspective.
I would have given top priority to U-boats from day one. I would also have tried to persuade Stalin to invade Persia and India the same month I attacked France. I even would have "lent" them a dozen German Divisions to ride along, to cover the Western flank of such an attack. It is a known fact the Iraq would have welcomed the Nazis with open arms.

By 1941, Britain would be safely isolated, and a huge portion of the Soviet Army would be mired in India, giving Barbarossa a much better chance of success and diminishing the chance of Yugoslavia becoming an issue at all.

Italy could have been persuaded to attempt to drive through Egypt rather than Greece, to reach their outpost in Etheopia before one of thier allies did.

Of course, this is all hypothetical nonsense.
All the Nazis would have had to do to win the war was treat the people they conquered in a reasonably human way. But then... they would not have been the kind of people who would start such an improbable war in the first place.

Round and round it goes...


I didnt think of that manfred... but you could still break treaty obligations with the soviets who would probably still invade. That would be a big propaganda victory with the allies....

As far as the germans wining by treating subjugated people well i'm not sure if that would have won them the war alone. It may have helped but it wouldnt have stopped nationalist feeling and resistance. Napoleon treated (most) of his sunjucated people well, after the looting of the actual war. They all even contributed a corps each for the 1812 campaign. But as soon as the russian winter left his army in ruins they all jumped at the chance to avenge earlier defeat and humiliation. Hell the Spanish never gave up the fight, even with 200000+ french troops in country.

Anyways as you said if i wasnt a nazi then i probably wouldn't have started the war anyway, and if i was then i was bound for a war with the allies, the french especially so this is hypothetical nonsence.

If i really was in charge of germany in august 1939 i wouldnt start a war i coudn't win, especially one with no good reason. Because (unlike hitler) i'm not a sociopath.....
 

riksavage

Banned Member
When Germany invaded the Ukraine, instead of treating them as sub-humans they should have treated them as allies. They would have then had an endless pool of military man-power ready to join and fight against the Soviets. The Ukrainians originally saw the Germans as liberators, the crosses on the sides of the tanks a symbol of Christianity. The Germans failure to utilise and build upon this resentment of Soviet domination and religious persecution was a huge mistake.

At the end of the day Hitler proved to be Germany’s worst enemy, his micro management of the war and weapons production was a major contributing factor to their ultimate defeat. He is up there with the worst commanders in history. Generals like Von Rundstedt and Rommel must have been tearing their hair out most of time trying to manage Hitler’s woeful strategic and tactical decisions.

Whilst Hitler remained alive Germany was doomed to fail. He may have been a brave corporal in WWI, but a great General- NOT.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
Of course, this is all hypothetical nonsense.
All the Nazis would have had to do to win the war was treat the people they conquered in a reasonably human way. But then... they would not have been the kind of people who would start such an improbable war in the first place.
...
Exactly! You & Ozzy Blizzard are right. In order to win the war, the Nazis would have had to stop being Nazis. Not just their treatment of conquered people in general, but their specific policies towards Jews, their weird racial hierarchy theories, their domestic social policies - and the adverse economic effects they had. Etc., etc. But the craziness which led to those disastrous policies was the same craziness that got them into the war. Nazism = ultimately suicidal policies. No nazism = no WW2.

One would have to postulate something like one of the assassination attempts on Hitler succeeding, & the Nazis being forced to cede a large share of power to the non-Nazi military, for any hope of the sort of changes of policy that might have won a war.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
For global dominance they were doomed from the start because of 4 reasons:

1. Not enough industrial base
2. Did not have a long range bomber
3. Did not have a large enough surface fleet
4. Could not convince Japan to assist in a Russian invasion
Re the surface fleet, Germany was really caught out. They were concentrating on the long term Z plan which would have provided a powerful fleet (including 13 capital ships, 4 aircraft carriers and 241 submarines) by 1948 but were left with an unbalanced force in the meantime. If the German Navy had known war was coming in 1939 I expect they would have abandoned the Z plan and advanced submarine construction plans (so far as they could have under treaty constraints). For the cost of 4 battleships they could have built around another 240 submarines.


Tas

BTW, I agree totally with suggestions that Germany should have avoided war with Russia at all costs and also with the comment that Germany could not have won the war with Hitler as leader.
 

Manfred2

New Member
Germany could not have won the war with Hitler as leader.

He made some amazingly astute calls, and not just in the political arena. His "stand fast" order after Moscow saved the day for the German Army in Russia.
However, he thought he could pull the same trick over and over, and that was a dissater. If somebody had killed him on December 8th, then an unfettered General Staff might have been able to salvage the situation Hitler had placed them in.

The first order of buisness would have been to dither just long enough to force the US to declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbor. Then you see if Stalin is still willing to give up Belarussia and the Ukraine for a cease-fire. If he does, reinforce Rommel and knock Britain's Army out of the war. That way, you have another front to attack Russia from when you resume the war against the Soviets in 1943.
 
Top