How could Germany have won the war?

@Razor:

@aequitas:

you also would have woke up the Arabien league (especially when you are about to cross the easten part of Turkey).

Marhaba, kifallach, mabsout eh? You too speak arabian, aequitas ? Jalla jalla, my special friend price for you.

Who do you, in your humble opinion, think the Arabien league will most likely support, Hitler with his anti-jews policy and close cooperation with islamic leader Amir Al-Husseini, or the Ottoman infidels who depressed and subjectioned the arabs for one century and at this time (1940) try to make a secular state away from islam ?

naw ,only a few sentences turkish to get good conversations with some Turkish friends over here.
The question of Turkey in WW II. and it´s role was allready discussed many times of course but mostly ended up, with the high possibility that the Arabien League would not welcomed an Invasion of Turkey.
And in fact,Turkey (as well as the Arabien League) welcomed the anti - jew policy of Hitler but it would have been soon clear IF Hitler is invading Turkey, then the Arabien League would have figured that his hate/interrest is against all different thinkers and believers.
Hitler knew what he was doing by keeping Turkey at bay in that state they where (officially Neutral) and even allowing SS - Handschar fighting along with his soldiers. SS-Handschar was the only Muslime Unit (Croats) who fought for Hitler against the Soviets.
It is to understand that it was more like an unwritten pact between N.-Germany and Turkey and The Arabien League tolertaing the things happen in N.-Germany and dealing metal, interrests and money etc. …
But to be honest and to leave it a little bit open, it is hard to say what exactly would have happend if Turkey would have been conquered as a whole, including the eastern part. -> according to the Ottoman question you have raised.

It was a very sharp and Interresting question of you Razor :-)  iyi Günler (my Turkish writting is bad lol :wink:)

Nice answer. And it just might be a good reason nobody dared attack Turkey during the real war

@Razor:

Nice answer. And it just might be a good reason nobody dared attack Turkey during the real war

8-) :-D

I did not mean to imply the US was selling goods to Germany after the declaration of war, my mistake, I should have been more specific.  I would also like to add that it was not the US government but US corporations which have a mind and motive of their own.

http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_nastybiz.html

So anyways,

The Lend-Lease act was enacted 9 months before Pearl Harbor but well after the outbreak of WW II.

I didn’t know this until just know, from wiki…

Formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, the Act effectively ended the United States’ pretense of neutrality.

Germany may have easily been able to use PR to delay or even prevent this act from being passed.  Britain was running out of gold and prior to this act the US could not sell war materials on credit.

If this act could have been delayed until 1942 and Germany been better prepared with subs in the Atlantic then I think Germany would have a good foundation for choking out England.

@ShadowHAwk:

…Just that history is always written by the victor not the loser of a war.

And this is exactly the problem and makes it hard to figure out the truth…

There are a lot of things that could have helped Germany in the war, but very few I think would have changed it.  I think seizing Gibralter would have caused a domino effect that would have taken England out of the war.  Gibralter cuts off Africa, Rommel take the suez cannal and pushes into the Middle East.  India falls to Japan because it is outflanked by Germany to the west.  England either sues for peace or is irrelevant militarily.  Full German force hits Russia,  Russia falls (and don’t forget they would have to contend with Rommel’s Africa corps flanking the caucus oil fields).

But short of that, the quick answer would be mass produced sturmgewher from the start of the war.  If that was standard issue to every German soldier (at least as of June 1941) no one could have stopped the Wermarcht.  People get caught up with German wonder weapons like King tigers, Jets, and Rockets, but over look the impact of having the first assault rifle.  This is supported by the results the Germans got from the MG42.  It was mass produced and along with the 88s they contributed to hugely to the success the Germans had.  Again, not as sexy as the first guided missle or the Kommet, but it got the job done.

The other thing would have been for Hitler to knock off his racist crap in reguards to the Ukranians.  He would of had millions more soldiers fighting for him instead of against him.

I think NOT starting the war would have been the best way to win.

@Gargantua:

I think NOT starting the war would have been the best way to win.

“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”
– WarGames (1983 movie)

@CWO:

@Gargantua:

I think NOT starting the war would have been the best way to win.

“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”
– WarGames (1983 movie)

Exactly the movie I was thinking of!

I agree that infantry weapons have a larger impact on wars, since infantry win wars.

I hear on this site and others about Germany’s great weapon systems and their possible impact had Germany started the war with these weapons. It’s forgotten that many of these weapons were produced in reaction to situations the War produced. We also forget that the militaries at times are ruled by traditionist.

While the jet aircraft should have been produced by Germany, it’s hard to see the German Infantry going to war with anything but the Mauser 98 and MG 34 and the Panzer Divisions armed with anything more advanced than the Panzer III and IV, but in far greater numbers.

U-Boats and Capital Ships numbers would have no doubt been greater and been better prepared for a long war.

Very good ABWorsham.

Maybe if Germanies population was double, or triple… this would have been possible.

Interesting that every option has been chosen at least once.  Germany needed a lot of help to win.

@Gargantua:

Maybe if Germanies population was double, or triple… this would have been possible.

This might of been the most useful for Germany.  Amazing that a country of 80 million people even threatened to win.

@Gargantua:

Maybe if Germanies population was double, or triple… this would have been possible.

False, they didnt lack men, they lack  resources, like oil, iron, food etc

Well with 3x as many people working in ADVANCE of the war, producing, manufacturing, gathering, and trading for resources.  I boast that perhaps 3x as many resources would have been available.

Its not the number of men that matters, its their IQ.

5000 brits ruled 400 000 Indians.

The IQ of the brits was no different from the IQ of the Indians.  IQ and technology are different things.

I think it is more of a societal thing.  One of the reasons I am proud to be an American is that we TOOK our freedom from England when England was (close to) at its strongest.  You look around the world and you see these third world countries bitching and moaning about “its not our fault, we were a colony”!  Boo frigg’n hoo.  So were we, and instead of being given our freedom (which India was, if you believe Ghandi did it I have a bridge to sell you), we took it.  Taking freedom is much different than having it given to you.  Look around the world at the old colonies, most of them are run now dictators and are poor.  Very few took their freedom, most got it because we pressured England to drop its colonies after the war (which they had to do, or no Marshall plan $).

We have a Constitution that allows us to have weapons.  That was not put in there so people could hunt or defend themselves against muggers.  It was put in there so that the government does not have a monopoly on force.

I find it interesting that my post got a -1 -2.  So, this person(s) believes that Indians are inferior to Brits?  Well that would be racist.  Or does that person feel IQ and technology are the same thing?  Well that would be stupid.  Stupid or racist, what a choice….

Zooey72, you believe Europe gave up it’s colonies as a condition of the Marshall plan?  In theory that may have been a requirement but in practice colonies of France and England in Africa went on for decades.  Some of the African names may not be that significant, but perhaps if we move to southeast asia… Vietnam ought to ring a bell to Americans.  That was a colony of France.  Not only did the US offer France aid under the Marshall plan but took over the fight basically.

http://www.historytoday.com/sami-abouzahr/tangled-web-america-france-and-indochina-1947-50

In particular, the Marshall Plan, which provided Western European countries with aid and a framework for European co-operation during the years 1947-50, played a vital role in the development of US policy towards Indochina. Washington needed French co-operation in the reconstruction of Western Europe along US policy lines, and this requirement made it impossible for the US to condemn or attempt to alter French policy in Indochina. By 1949 the US had become committed to keeping Communism out of Southeast Asia within its own Cold War strategy. This pushed the US to pour money and aid into the hopeless French attempt to keep its imperial possession. By the time the French abandoned the effort after the catastrophic defeat at Dien Bien Phu (1954), the US was financing 80 per cent of the French war effort, and had committed itself financially, politically and emotionally to preventing a Communist victory there.

You also feel Ghandi played little part in the independence of India, in your opinion then what was the big moving force there?

With your low opinion of how other countries got their freedom you must be proud of how Vietnam got theirs.

Some of the countries on this list were colonies of Europe until the 70s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization_of_Africa