Why did Germany lose WW2?

This may be a little off base as far as the question goes. But what would have happened if the BEF had been destroyed at Dunkirk. The cream of the British officer corps would have been dead or in captivity. Let us assume that Hitler decided to put 4 or 5 divisions into North Africa instead of one. What would Britain do? Would they continue the war or sue for peace?
 
papasha408 said:
This may be a little off base as far as the question goes. But what would have happened if the BEF had been destroyed at Dunkirk. The cream of the British officer corps would have been dead or in captivity. Let us assume that Hitler decided to put 4 or 5 divisions into North Africa instead of one. What would Britain do? Would they continue the war or sue for peace?
Click to expand...
Let not assume that Hitler would decide to put 4 or 5 divisions in NA:it would be very stupid of Hitler,and,you can't assume that he would continue to do stupid things .
 
These “4 or 5” German divisions could well have come from the forces used to invade Greece. It is possible that the Brit forces sent into Greece could then have been used in N. Africa to oppose Rommel (and maybe Gen. O'Conner would not have been captured and commanded them as well).
 
lljadw said:
Let not assume that Hitler would decide to put 4 or 5 divisions in NA:it would be very stupid of Hitler,and,you can't assume that he would continue to do stupid things .
Click to expand...

Why would putting lets say 4 divisions, 3 of them panzer to take North Africa be stupid on the part of Hitler? Hitler blundered right from the beginning when he didn,t destroy or capture the BEF. His fixation on the destruction of the Soviet Union was another blunder as I see it.
Lets pretend Hitler can see past his own biases. Lets pretend Hitler even had a grasp of grand strategy, which he didn,t.
With 4 divisions and questionable help from the Italians the Axis could have rolled over Egypt, Palestine and Syria to boot. The Vichy French in Syria would probably have helped the Germans. Now Hitler has the Suez canal, the Middle East and has parked his panzers on Turkey's doorstep. The entire picture of WW2 has changed.
 
papasha408 said:
This may be a little off base as far as the question goes. But what would have happened if the BEF had been destroyed at Dunkirk. The cream of the British officer corps would have been dead or in captivity. Let us assume that Hitler decided to put 4 or 5 divisions into North Africa instead of one. What would Britain do? Would they continue the war or sue for peace?
Click to expand...

1) Well even with the defeat at Dunkirk I doubt Britain would have sued for peace primarily because Churchill had painted the nation into a corner that it couldn't get out of.

2) Putting 4-5 Divisions into Africa would have compounded the problem as they were struggling to keep what they had there supplied, hell Hitler could have sent the entire German army and it would have advanced about 150 miles from the start point and then sat there waiting for fuel and ammunition just like the Afrika Korps did.

3) I suspect Britain would have mobilised more of the Indian population which would have supplied the BEF in manpower hundreds of times over.

Winning wars is not only about force ratios but it is also about logistics and while Germany could provide the numbers they could never have supplied the material.
 
MontyB said:
1) Well even with the defeat at Dunkirk I doubt Britain would have sued for peace primarily because Churchill had painted the nation into a corner that it couldn't get out of.

2) Putting 4-5 Divisions into Africa would have compounded the problem as they were struggling to keep what they had there supplied, hell Hitler could have sent the entire German army and it would have advanced about 150 miles from the start point and then sat there waiting for fuel and ammunition just like the Afrika Korps did.

3) I suspect Britain would have mobilised more of the Indian population which would have supplied the BEF in manpower hundreds of times over.

Winning wars is not only about force ratios but it is also about logistics and while Germany could provide the numbers they could never have supplied the material.
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt Churchill would have been given the lee-way he had when the miracle of Dunkirk happened. The entire army is gone so to speak. Britain must rely on the RAF and RN and a small Canadian army to protect it. I believe the entire mood in Britain would have been depressed and panicky. Churchill had many enemies in both houses and many aristocrats believed Hitler was the man to sort out Europe. Who knows what would have taken place.
I still believe North Africa could have been taken. But it is the conquest of Palestine and Syria which is most important. With the panzers parked on Turkey's doorstep the Turks may well have joined the Axis.
As far as India goes, the British had more problems than they wished to admit. Mohandas Ghandi's anti-British campaign was very effective in turning a great part of the population against England. And lets not forget the Indian liberation army. Britain's demand of more troops could very well have blown up in their faces.
With Malta out of the way I doubt very much if logistics would have been a problem.
With the BEF gone how would America reacted? Would Roosevelt still have supplied Britain with material?
 
papasha408 said:
Somehow I doubt Churchill would have been given the lee-way he had when the miracle of Dunkirk happened. The entire army is gone so to speak. Britain must rely on the RAF and RN and a small Canadian army to protect it. I believe the entire mood in Britain would have been depressed and panicky. Churchill had many enemies in both houses and many aristocrats believed Hitler was the man to sort out Europe. Who knows what would have taken place.
I still believe North Africa could have been taken. But it is the conquest of Palestine and Syria which is most important. With the panzers parked on Turkey's doorstep the Turks may well have joined the Axis.
As far as India goes, the British had more problems than they wished to admit. Mohandas Ghandi's anti-British campaign was very effective in turning a great part of the population against England. And lets not forget the Indian liberation army. Britain's demand of more troops could very well have blown up in their faces.
With Malta out of the way I doubt very much if logistics would have been a problem.
With the BEF gone how would America reacted? Would Roosevelt still have supplied Britain with material?
Click to expand...
A lot of dubious statements
1)At Dunkirk (operation Dynamo),some 50 % of the BEF was saved (198000 men),,NOT the whole BEF
2)What you believe what would be the mood of Britain,is irrelevant :there is NO indication that Britain would give up if there was no "Dynamo"
3)Already in september 1940,there was a big army that was waiting for the Germans.
4)The Germans never could go farther than the Canal :there was no possibility to supply an army east of Suez.
5)About Turkey:no military with any brain would court the Turks:Turkey only would a drain on the limited German resources,as was Italy,and as would be Spain .
 
papasha408 said:
Why would putting lets say 4 divisions, 3 of them panzer to take North Africa be stupid on the part of Hitler? Hitler blundered right from the beginning when he didn,t destroy or capture the BEF. His fixation on the destruction of the Soviet Union was another blunder as I see it.
Lets pretend Hitler can see past his own biases. Lets pretend Hitler even had a grasp of grand strategy, which he didn,t.
With 4 divisions and questionable help from the Italians the Axis could have rolled over Egypt, Palestine and Syria to boot. The Vichy French in Syria would probably have helped the Germans. Now Hitler has the Suez canal, the Middle East and has parked his panzers on Turkey's doorstep. The entire picture of WW2 has changed.
Click to expand...
And,why would the entire picture of WWII have changed ? Because of the mythical importance of the Middle East ? There was nothing in the ME that the Germans could use .
 
lljadw said:
And,why would the entire picture of WWII have changed ? Because of the mythical importance of the Middle East ? There was nothing in the ME that the Germans could use .
Click to expand...

Except for oil, the Suez Canal, another route to attack the Soviets. And that's just off the top of my head
 
Had Germany had more success in North Africa Spain would have thrown there lot in with him to get hold of Gibraltar. Also if Hitler had reached the Canal then Persia would have thrown it lot in with the Germans and there had already been an uprising there led by so called German tourist. With Hitler on the Canal then Turkey would have joined in on the Axis side hoping to get much of the Greek territory that is always in dispute. Several other Arab countries would have also joined in on the Axis side to get rid of the large number of Jews that were arriving in the middle east looking to set up their own homeland.
 
Last edited:
BritinAfrica said:
Except for oil, the Suez Canal, another route to attack the Soviets. And that's just off the top of my head
Click to expand...
The oil in Iraq(the only the Germans could use) was less than 1 % of the world production .
And,I don't see the utility for the Germans to be masters of the Canal .
 
lljadw said:
And,I don't see the utility for the Germans to be masters of the Canal .
Click to expand...

If the Afrika Korps got to the Suez Canal, the ability of the Allies to supply themselves would be severely dented. The only alternate supply route would be via South Africa - which was not only longer but a lot more dangerous due to the vagaries of the weather. The psychological blow of losing the Suez and losing in North Africa would have been incalculable.

The Germans can then move on into Palestine and the rich oilfields of Iraq. The Germans would also now more easily take Greece and hop over and take control of Cyprus. Turkey would now most likely read the writing on the wall and join the axis. Probably Iran as well (the Shah was pro-German), India would be directly threatened from both Germany and Japan, which at this point would be eyeing the pacific with very greedy eyes. When Germany does invade the USSR, it will not only be a full frontal assault as it was historically, but the Germans would also push through the Caucasus and quickly grab the vital oil fields there. ​
 
Last edited:
42RM said:
If the Afrika Korps got to the Suez Canal, the ability of the Allies to supply themselves would be severely dented. The only alternate supply route would be via South Africa - which was not only longer but a lot more dangerous due to the vagaries of the weather. The psychological blow of losing the Suez and losing in North Africa would have been incalculable.

The Germans can then move on into Palestine and the rich oilfields of Iraq. The Germans would also now more easily take Greece and hop over and take control of Cyprus. Turkey would now most likely read the writing on the wall and join the axis. Probably Iran as well (the Shah was pro-German), India would be directly threatened from both Germany and Japan, which at this point would be eyeing the pacific with very greedy eyes. When Germany does invade the USSR, it will not only be a full frontal assault as it was historically, but the Germans would also push through the Caucasus and quickly grab the vital oil fields there. ​
Click to expand...

My point exactly
 
LeEnfield said:
Had Germany had more success in North Africa Spain would have thrown there lot in with him to get hold of Gibraltar. Also if Hitler had reached the Canal then Persia would have thrown it lot in with the Germans and there had already been an uprising there led by so called German tourist. With Hitler on the Canal then Turkey would have joined in on the Axis side hoping to get much of the Greek territory that is always in dispute. Several other Arab countries would have also joined in on the Axis side to get rid of the large number of Jews that were arriving in the middle east looking to set up their own homeland.
Click to expand...
Only a fool would have tried to have Spain,Turkey,Persia as allies:
The Spanish army could not operate outside Spain,the Spanish Navy and Air Force did not exist.The same for Turkey .
And Persia:it had nothing :no army;no navy;no air force .
The Arab countries would do as ordered by Britain .
 
lljadw said:
Only a fool would have tried to have Spain,Turkey,Persia as allies:
The Spanish army could not operate outside Spain,the Spanish Navy and Air Force did not exist.The same for Turkey .
And Persia:it had nothing :no army;no navy;no air force .
The Arab countries would do as ordered by Britain .
Click to expand...

In part I agree however Spain did provide a volunteer division that fought in Russia and there was the 1941 Anglo-Iraqi war which indicated a more pro-Axis stance.


42RM said:
If the Afrika Korps got to the Suez Canal, the ability of the Allies to supply themselves would be severely dented. The only alternate supply route would be via South Africa - which was not only longer but a lot more dangerous due to the vagaries of the weather. The psychological blow of losing the Suez and losing in North Africa would have been incalculable.

The Germans can then move on into Palestine and the rich oilfields of Iraq. The Germans would also now more easily take Greece and hop over and take control of Cyprus. Turkey would now most likely read the writing on the wall and join the axis. Probably Iran as well (the Shah was pro-German), India would be directly threatened from both Germany and Japan, which at this point would be eyeing the pacific with very greedy eyes. When Germany does invade the USSR, it will not only be a full frontal assault as it was historically, but the Germans would also push through the Caucasus and quickly grab the vital oil fields there. ​
Click to expand...


The problem is that you make it sounds like something they could do in an afternoon then whip back to Germany for dinner, no one is doubting the German soldiers ability to have reached the Suez and beyond where the giant bottle neck in this plan lies is in the ability of Germany to supply enough troops to be able to do the job and the fact is that at Al Alamein they hadn't run out of soldiers, tanks or Generals to lead them they had run out of supplies.
 
Last edited:
But,the division "Azul" was equipped and trained by the Germans .Spain could not equip one division for "active service".
About the fighting in Iraq in 1941,it was quickly finished by an intervention of a small British force .
 
C rap for brains - Adolf was basically unhinged.

H itler - see above

U nder-estimation of Winston's clarity and determination of will.

R acism of the unhinged ones.

C heck! and check again 'til checkmate! by Churchill.

H opelessly unable to read Churchill correctly.

I ncorrect assessments of Churchill's moves and motivation.

L oss of the Battle of Britain.

L ol - fooled into moving on Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top