MovieChat Forums > Fatherland (1994) Discussion > Could Germany have won the war?

Could Germany have won the war?


Surely by June 1944 it was too late, regardless of the outcome of D-Day. Only if repulsing the Normandy landings gained the Germans enough time to develop their "wonder weapons" including the A-Bomb (which they do in the book, but in reality they were no where near building) could they have perhaps dragged the war on for another year. Because the Soviets would still be on their offensive in the East, and the strategic bombing would still have continued from England. And when the Americans finally got the A-bomb in July 1945 and had it been used on German cities, I’m sure the Germans would have surrendered at once like the Japanese did.

Surely the Germans only chance to win was during the Battle of Britain in 1940. Because at the time, they were not fighting the USSR, and had they won that, and successfully invaded Britain, it would all have been over.

In the end Hitler lost the war by:

Not winning the Battle of Britain
Invading the USSR and fighting a war on two fronts
Declaring war on America after Pearl Harbor causing the onslaught of strategic bombing.

reply

Well...

There are the two scenarios in "Fatherland", the one in the movie and the one in the book.

The book version is far more realistic where in 1942 the Reich somehow discovers that the British have cracked their Enigma codes and are reading all their top secret communiques resulting in mounting German losses in the battle for the Atlantic. The Germans start sending false messages for the Allies to read while at the same time recalling all the U-boats from the Atlantic for refitting and reorganisation. Presumably they replace the Enigma machines with some other system which the Allies won't be able to break for some considerable time. They then set a trap for the bulk of the Royal Navy using false messages for Bletchley Park to decode and somehow inflict crippling losses thereby tipping the Battle of the Atlantic decesively in the Reich's favour. With the loss of both the priceless intell from Enigma and most of the Naval forces used in fighting the U-boats, Germany then effectively strangles Britain's Atlantic convoys. With no supplies of food (or anything else for that matter) Britain is then forced to surrender and the US has no forward base from which to attack Germany.
On the Eastern Front, Germany suceeds in it's 1942 summer offensive capturing the oilfields of the Caucesues, gaining important supplies of oil near the frontline and depriving the Red Army at the same time. The sixth army is not destroyed at Stalingrad (how this is played out is not detailed) and slowly the Red Army begins to crumble until some point in 1943 when it collapses completly.

The movie scenario differs in that the turning point is the Normandy invasion. Again, not much detail is given but it could be that the Omaha landing became a total disaster (it had been close run thing in real life too) and the beachhead evacuated. German strategic reserves held behind the beaches instead of dithering as in real life, are thrown against Juno, Sword and Gold beaches and stall the invasion on the all important first day. The invasion falters, turning into a more massive replay of the Dieppe disaster. General Eisenhower is forced to resign after the debacle and another invasion is unlikely to take place for at least another year. With the breathing space afforded from the victory, Germany slows the Red army in the east and is able to continue its rocket research AND Nuclear research most likely in the hollowed out mountain complexes the Germans had developed in real life when Allied strategic bombing had become irresistable. At some point in either 1945 or '46, the Reich use a pair of modified V2s equipped with nuclear warheads, one on London, the other on New York bringing WWII to an end. Some kind of conflict continues in the East right up until the events of the book/movie and seems to be consuming vast resources and men despite the Reich's dominince elsewhere.


Btw, the RAF's strategic bombing campaign had already begun before America's entry into the war in December 1941 since it was about the only way Britain could effectively strike back at Germany at the time. Even without USAAF intervention, the RAF Night bombing offensive grew steadily so that by the summer of '43 they were mounting thousand bomber raids on cities like Hamburg, causing the incineration of huge swathes of conurbation without assistance from their allies.

Just so you know!

reply

[deleted]


Germany could have won the war only if America had never joined the war in Europe.

An Allied defeat at Normandy would not have changed the final outcome of the war. Germany might have won the battle, but not the war.

Germany could have won the war by only defeating Russia in 1941, before America joined the war. Germany should have made peace with Britain in 1940 after the conquest of France to eliminate the need to attack American ships bringing supplies to Britain. This would have prevented the war between Germany and America.

With Russia as Germany's only enemy, Germany could have conquered Leningrad and Moscow in the autumn of 1941.

Stalingrad was not decisive. It was already too late. Even if Germany had won the battle of Stalingrad in February 1943, so what?

Caucasus was not decisive either. Even if Germany had been able to advance to the Caspian Sea and thereby cut off the supply of oil from Baku to the Red Army, the Soviets still had a lot of oilfields in Siberia and Kazakhstan; and above all, the Americans and the British would still have been able to supply the Red Army via Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Iran and Vladivostok.

Germany could have defeated Russia only if America and the Britain had not aided Russia against Germany.

Therefore, a necessary condition for a German victory would have been a peace with Britain before Operation Barbarossa, and the continuance of peaceful relations between Germany and America.

reply

I think Germany's downslide comes at the failure of the Battle of Britain. The only way in my mind that Britain would have surrenderred is if they were invaded, and the only way to invade was to gain naval and air supperiority of the english channel (the objective of the Battle of Britain).

From reading history I think Hitler saw that he was locked in a stalemate with Britain and chose to focus on increasing his empire to the East instead of wasting time and resources with Britain. But by this time Russia had prepared against invasion and built up their military.

So you can look at it as Hitler was too ambitious in his goals and should never have invaded Russia or he should have done a better job strategically with Britain.

reply


Germany would not have been able to invade Britain. Operation Seelöwe was not a realistic possibility. Germany could have made peace with Britain in 1940 only if Britain had wanted peace. Germany could have e.g. offered to withdraw from Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and France on the condition that Britain and France sign a peace treaty with Germany and accept the annexation Czechoslovakia and Poland by Germany.

Peace with Britain is necessary to avoid war with America. Germany could have won the war against Russia only if there had been no war with America and no war with Britain after Dunkirk.

reply

The invasion of Britain would have had a chance had the Luftwaffe been successful in the Battle of Britain. I agree, once America joined the war the cards were stacked decisively in the Allies hands. But Japan didn't really leave germany with a choice in declaring war.

Had the attack on Pearl Harbor been more devastating to the US's naval fleet then America would have been knocked out of the war in the Pacific which would have left Japan to open a second front on Russia.

Really, the whole strategy of WW2 is amazing we can only guess what would have happened if certain seemingly small events gone a different way.

reply

In reality, Hitler did try to make peace with Britian, once before the Dunkirk evacuation and again afterward, but Churchill told Hitler where to stick it and the Battle of Britain was launched by the Luftwaffe.

In the book the German victory scenario was convincing, since after all Hitler's decision to take Stalingrad was mostly a matter of his ego, since the Baku oilfields produced about 70% of the Soviet Union's oil reserves. And in the book, Germany takes the Caucasus in Summer of 1942, but the Red Army doesn't completely collapse unitl Spring of 1943, which is more realistic since the Soviets would have fought to the bitter end like that.

THe victory over Britain by using the Enigma deception was less convincing, since in reality England broke the Enigma code and Germany didn't have a clue.

What was realistic is that Japan would still have lost the war, since Japanese technology and manpower was totally outmatched by America. Germany had the technology to force a stalemate with America and have a new Cold War with both sides having nukes, Space Race, spies, etc.


The movie was NOT convincing. Germany was not interested in occupying Western Europe, and I don't think they would have re-named Berlin "Germania"


One other note: HItler's grand architecture plans with Speer might not have been possible, since Berlin was built over a swamp. The huge buildings would not have held up, Speer even tested this by building experimental pillars in Berlin, which sank into the loose earth underneath.

reply

Hitler was dangerously close to at the very least extending that war for years and years. The turning point in the war was Stalingrad. The Anglo front which the Brits and Americans fought on was futile anyway. Had Russia lost Stalingrad which they SHOULD have had Hitler not been a horrible general that war could have ended badly for the world. Let me start by saying on how the Germans should have won Stalingrad. The Germans had the Russians pinned back and were very close to taking that city and they kept charging forward. The Russians knowing they were in immense trouble decided to pincer the Germans via their flanks. Well these flanks were guarded by very bad soldiers (Italians and Romanians). They did ask to be reinforced but Hitler was too bent on crushing the city and showing up Stalin. So the Germans lost their flanks and eventually lost the battle. Had the Germans kept their flanks no doubt they would have won that battle and very soon would have defeated Russia. Luckily Hitler was too blind to notice this flaw and he lost it. Now lets assume Hitler reinforces the flanks and they win that battle. Well now Russia is cut off from resupplying and Moscow would be taken in a matter of weeks. After Russia is taken then in my theory they would have helped the Japs to finish off China and strengthen the pacific fleets of Japan. Now with Russia gone they could concentrate 100% on the anglo front. Which had only 20% of the German force defending it. The Germans had much better technology and would have eventually taken over both America and the UK because they were just all around better soldiers , had better planes , better weapons etc. etc. Luckily the Russians all but sealed the fate of Germany with that loss. America joining the war was NOT the turning point. America was not as strong as Russia and the Nazis hardly had any of their force on the anglo front. Had Russia fallen the world could have easily fallen with it. The Russians won that war not the Americans. I am American also and not one of the billions of people that hate america...

reply

Stalingrad was not as important as you would have us believe. Even if the Germans had taken Stalingrad and the Caucasus, the Americans and the British would still have been able to ship supplies to Russia via Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Vladivostok and Persia.

In the summer of 1941 the Soviet Union and the British Empire occupied Persia to prevent it from selling oil to Germany. The British and American aid shipments to Russia came partially through Persia. Even if Germany had taken the Caucasus, Persia (AKA Iran) still had a border with the Soviet Union in Turkmenistan. Therefore the conquest of the Caucasus by Germany would not have prevented the Americans and the British from supplying Russia through Persia. And in addition to Persia, aid could be shipped via Murmansk, Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok.

Murmansk was rather close to the front and might have been easily captured by the Germans or the Finns, but Arkhangelsk was much farther away and could probably not have been taken by the Germans in any plausible scenario.

Vladivostok was certainly totally beyond the reach of the Germans. Also the Japanese navy would have been unable to stop American shipments to Vladivostok.


reply

By the time Germany was approaching Stalingrad it was already doomed. Allow me to explain by working backwards through time:

**As far as the US is concerned, Hitler was screwed the day he declared war against it. Yes, the USSR was more powerful (militarily) than the US in June 1941 but by August 1942 there was a completely different story. In fact, the USSR never had near the economic clout that the US did. (That, BTW, is why there isn't a USSR today.)

**Hitler screwed himself by invading Poland (forcing the declaration of war against him by the British and the French who were done kissing Hitler's @$$). Hitler sealed this deal by not finishing off the Brits in the Battle of Britain--if the blitz didn't work (which it didn't), AH should have used any means necessary to take Britain out. Churchill, who had been warning the Brits about Hitler for at least 10-15 years was not about to say (when the blitz stopped and Barbarossa started), "Oh, well--Hitler is the Soviets' problem now."

**Ultimately, Hitler was screwed by an event that was totally out of his control:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Summary

This started as a skirmish between the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo and the Soviet client state of Mongolia. A little background: Japan "slapped the tar baby" by invading China. To finish off China, Japan had to either take Siberia or take the Pacific. Well, Khalkhin Gol eliminated the first option--to the point that the Japanese never again gave serious thought to making war against the USSR. To execute the second option, Japan had to take the Philippines; in order to do that, Japan had to destroy the (US) Pacific Fleet. But then, as the British say, "Bob's your uncle!"

~~Bayowolf
There's a difference between being frank... and being dick.

reply

if the germans DID repulse the landings at d-day it would only prolong the war. on the eastern front at the time the soviet steamroller war crussing german forces and ontop of that the two largest ressistance groupes in the world would rise against the nazis as done in yugoslavia and warsaw.


but back in 1942-early 1943 germany WAS winning the war. had hitler captured stalingrad he would have gained masses of oil to drive the german econemy. the whole of the southern russian fromt would be captured and russia's oil would have been lost with their war machine. it would only be a matter of time before moscow fell. also stalingrad was before kursk. if the germans had alot of tanks there emagine how many tanks they would have now that they have the rich oil fields of southern russia!



reply

True, even though the German Sixth Army was beaten at Stalingrad, Germany was in control of the Western Soviet Union in early 1943, and wasn't pushed back to the old Soviet-Polish border until the summer of 1944.

Germany was in control from 1939-1944, first controlling Eastern Europe, then 90% of the Contintent by 1941. Even after losing Italy in 1943, the US-British forces were bottled up on the Italian boot by the Alps.

It wasn't unitl the summer of 1944, when the Western Allies landed in France and the Soviets advanced into Poland that Germany's situation became desperate. Less than a year after D-Day, Germany was finished, after 5 years of domination from 1939-1944.

German victory depended on the Soviet front, not D-Day. American's massive reserves of men, materials, and money helped on the Western Front, but most of the fighting was done by Soviets, who took Berlin in the end.

reply

The Russians had a lot of oilfields in Siberia, so even if the Germans had taken the Caucasus, the Red Army would not have suffered from a lack of fuel.

Besides the Americans and the British sent a lot of supplies to Russia anyway, so if the Red Army had needed more fuel than what could be obtained from the oilfields in Siberia, all of the necessary fuel could have been easily shipped to the Russians by the Americans and the British via Persia, Murmansk, Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok.

reply

The Baku oilfields in the Caucasus supplied about 70% of the USSR's fuel, and had then modern equipment and refineries.

The Siberian oilfields were not equipped with the machines to extract the fuel.

Plus America and Britain send food and transport vehicles to the USSR, not tanks and planes.

The USSR moved its war factories East of the Ural mountains, where the Red Army's war machines were built.


Western aid was for humanitarian purposes, not for war materials.

reply

"The Baku oilfields in the Caucasus supplied about 70% of the USSR's fuel, and had then modern equipment and refineries. The Siberian oilfields were not equipped with the machines to extract the fuel."

Source?

"Plus America and Britain send food and transport vehicles to the USSR, not tanks and planes."

Source?

"The USSR moved its war factories East of the Ural mountains, where the Red Army's war machines were built."

True.

"Western aid was for humanitarian purposes, not for war materials."

Not true at all.

reply

"Plus America and Britain send food and transport vehicles to the USSR, not tanks and planes."

Source?


Are you for real? It's a common knowledge.

Most of the vehicles sent were heavy-duty trucks, hundreds of thousands of them. Actually most of their truck were American and the few Soviet trucks they had were really crappy, they later copied the the US trucks, just as their copied Jeep and made UAZ, copied the B-29 Superfortress and made TU-4, etc. Most of the meat Soviet soldiers were eating American ham in cans ("svinaia-tushonka").

reply

The soviets were nearly bled white by 1945 in real life. All reserves had been committed at stalingrad in 1942. If there is a defeat there, most of the Red army will be incapable of resistance, and the germans can then advance unopposed to a line from Archangel to Astrakhan. The original plan was just to form a defensive line there, and consolodate the hold on european Russia. How is red army going to launch a successfull attack in that position? And how can you land in France if the bulk of the German army is intact and available for deployment? They will have forced a stalemate, and most likely resistance will halt.

"No man is just a number"

reply

One way in which Nazi Germany could have put itself in a better position to win the war was to have common strategies with Japan. For example, if the Japanese had sent troops into Africa through the Suez Canal, it's quite possible that the Allies would have lost in North Africa, and Hitler would have been able to get control of Middle East oil fields. In addition, the Japanese could have co-ordinated with Germany in invading Russia, and thereby put the Russians in the unfavorable position of having to fight a war on two fronts.

If the Axis had actually collaborated on its strategies to win the war, they would have had a better chance. But, instead they fought the war only in their own part of the world, and hence put the Allies in a superior position that ultimately prevailed.

reply

That;s true, the Anglo-Americans and Soviets did coordinate their war efforts much better than Germany and Japan did.

Germany and Japan could have divided up the British, Dutch, and French empires, since France and Holland were occupied by Germany, and Britain was under siege by Germany.

There was a plan for Japan to drive on India, and for Germany to drive towards the Middle East, but that didn't happen because Hitler attacked the USSR and Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, unleashing American and Soviet industrial might on the Axis.

Japan was pushed back at Burma, and Germany was pushed back from the Suez Canal, and by then German and Japanese forces were being diverted from other fronts to fight the Americans and Soviets.


reply

[deleted]

Hmm... Even if the allied invasion of Normandy had failed US would have eventually dropped atomic-bombs on Germany like they with Japan.

But, I think if the Nazis would have been able to capture Britain the allied invasion would have failed...

US would have been forced to land on Nazi land, and that would have made much difference.

Germany couldn't really attack England to draw out both the US and English defense at the same time.

reply

[deleted]

nope

Invasion of Russia (=> Lebensraum im Osten, the essence of all effords Hitler were ever conducting) and the war entry of the USA (=> you were threathing the existince of the Japanese empire by cutting it off from essential resources like oil) were inevitable developments.

The rest is pure statistic:

labour force
manpower
industrial output
access to raw materials
etc. pp.

and

nope @ surrender at once

The Nazi-regime didn't cared about the fate of the German people. Hitler himself said that only the stronger people has the right (to continue) to exist...and after the fall of Berlin it was not the German one.

For the Nazis, for Hitler, the German people had failed and thus deserved its annihilation.


Ich bin kein ausgeklügelt Buch, ich bin ein Mensch mit seinem Widerspruch.
Conrad Ferdinand Meyer

reply

i'm sorry but the d-day was crucial, so much ammount of money, troops and preparation was put in that invasion that a disaster would crush any hope of defeat the germans we are talking here about 175.000 assault troops, 200.000 navy personal only in the d-day, and 2.000.000 total after the full invasion

how you rebuild that?

reply

At latest with nukes we were done.

Ich bin kein ausgeklügelt Buch, ich bin ein Mensch mit seinem Widerspruch.
Conrad Ferdinand Meyer

reply