# A Nazi Earth-was it ever possible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2004, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nazi-earth-was-it-ever-possible/225249 "2004-01-19T23:16:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![nicky2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/edb3f5/32.png) [@nicky2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nicky2)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nazi-earth-was-it-ever-possible/225249/61 "2004-01-23T12:27:03Z")
Invading the Soviet Union to win Lebensraum is the cornerstone of Nazi ideology. If the Nazis dont invade the USSR, then they aint Nazis. As Ive already said, an amphibous liberation of Europe across the Atlantic is basically impossible. So IF the Nazis did win against Britain and the USSR, it comes down to a race between a Nazi Empire and The USA to develop intercontinental atomic weapons, and the political will to fight a nuclear war. I cant imagine a US govt in the mid-to-late 40’s declaring war on the Nazi empire and hoping to win through nuclear bombardment. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nazi-earth-was-it-ever-possible/225249/62 "2004-01-23T13:17:15Z")
> [@The Long Road](#): > > If it had started in May it also might have resulted in the total destruction of the German forces on the Eastern Front. The winter would have been just as bad but German forces would have been even futher from their supply bases. The Germans supply system can’t be overlooked when discussing the Eastern Front. Figthing for Moscow might have resulted in a Stalingrad type defeat in 41 instead of 42. > > As it was, the Germans barely held the front together at the end of 1941. The Russian offensive in December came close to breaking Army Group Center. > Even if you change some variables like the invasion date, some things remain the same such as the difference in rail gauges, the lack of roads, the autumn rains and the blizzards. I agree with most of what you said, but it’s taken in the wrong perspective. Russia was supposed to be like France - a quick war that’d be ended in months, because the opening advance was so overwhelming that surrender and negotiation was preferable to fighting it out in a terrible position. What you’re saying requires strategic planning for a several years long total war - Germany had never entered the war with that mindset. If they knew that’s what it would require, it wouldn’t have been done. So when people say “the Germans were stupid for not bringing enough winter gear”, and such, they don’t understand that fundamentally it’s a war that needs to end before the winter or it’s over anyway. Regarding what you said - you don’t realize just how close Stalin was to surrendering to the Germans. The opening months of the war were absolutely catastrophic for the Russians. As it was, Russia was on the brink of surrender - add another month’s worth of penetration to the German advance and it seems unlikely there wouldn’t have been a negotiated surrender. So, yes, if the Germans were caught, in the winter, deeper in Russian territory, supply problems would’ve been compounded. But the very fact that they’d reached that far in the opening campaign most likely would’ve forced an early surrender, like in France. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Long\_Road](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b5a626/32.png) [@The\_Long\_Road](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Long_Road)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nazi-earth-was-it-ever-possible/225249/63 "2004-01-23T21:59:57Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I agree with most of what you said, but it’s taken in the wrong perspective. > > Russia was supposed to be like France - a quick war that’d be ended in months, because the opening advance was so overwhelming that surrender and negotiation was preferable to fighting it out in a terrible position. > > What you’re saying requires strategic planning for a several years long total war - Germany had never entered the war with that mindset. If they knew that’s what it would require, it wouldn’t have been done. > > So when people say “the Germans were stupid for not bringing enough winter gear”, and such, they don’t understand that fundamentally it’s a war that needs to end before the winter or it’s over anyway. > > Regarding what you said - you don’t realize just how close Stalin was to surrendering to the Germans. The opening months of the war were absolutely catastrophic for the Russians. As it was, Russia was on the brink of surrender - add another month’s worth of penetration to the German advance and it seems unlikely there wouldn’t have been a negotiated surrender. > > So, yes, if the Germans were caught, in the winter, deeper in Russian territory, supply problems would’ve been compounded. But the very fact that they’d reached that far in the opening campaign most likely would’ve forced an early surrender, like in France. Question: How do you know what I do and do not realize? You quoted me and then added a lot of implications that I never said. I know that the invasion was supposed to be a short term affair and that the Germans did not expect to fight into the winter. That does nothing to change the fact that their supply system could not keep up, the troops fell too far behind due to lack of transportation and the Germans could not replace their losses. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nazi-earth-was-it-ever-possible/225249/64 "2004-01-23T23:44:18Z")
> [@The Long Road](#): > > Question: How do you know what I do and do not realize? You quoted me and then added a lot of implications that I never said Because you said: > [@](#): > > If it had started in May it also might have resulted in the total destruction of the German forces on the Eastern Front. The winter would have been just as bad but German forces would have been even futher from their supply bases. And my point was that if it ever came to that point, to establishing a line in the winter against counteroffensives in their supply situations, they’d already lost. The supply situation didn’t become dire until they’d settled in after the initial offensive was over. The offensive itself could’ve been maintained better if not for the atrociously wet and difficult to travel in Russian autumns. If they started a month or two earlier, they’d have that much more “campaigning season”. So, had it started in May, as planned, the initial advance would’ve reached deeper - to Moscow, at least - and a forced surrender, given the situation, was pretty likely. So, yes, IF the russians held out despite an even deeper advance, then it would’ve created even more supply problems for the German army. That, I believe, was your point. My counter point was that a deeper advance probably would’ve ended the war. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nazi-earth-was-it-ever-possible/225249/65 "2004-01-24T02:08:58Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > The system being what it is currently, I haven’t been able to find it in a search now, but I recall a thread many months ago where **Eolbo** linked to a post-war study that fairly well laid to rest the notion that Sealion (the German invasion of the UK in 1940) was even remotely possible. Perhaps if he sees this he could fid the link, but suffice it to say that the UK’s position in airpower during the Battle of Britain was not nearly as desperate as it is sometimes portrayed, and Germany’s ability to provide sealift amounted largely to Rhine-ferries which were barely seaworthy in the English Channel, and would have been easily devastated by the British fleet, even if they lacked air superiority by daylight. When comparing the English fleet to the German fleet you need to add in the French fleet. This was not pulled back in time (yet another mistake by Hitler) and the Brits destroyed it. I mention this because Germany absorbed infrastructure as they conquered. They started the war with virtually no tanks of any worth. Czechoslovakia became a major manufacturing point for early tank production. Hitler planned to do the same thing with Russia by capturing and holding the oil fields. I’m assuming the T-34 facilities were viewed as a nice trophy but the Russians packed up shop and moved. That is probably what kept them in the game long enough to drive the Germans back. I’ve always been in awe of the blitzkrieg. Not because it was brilliant, or new, (it was neither) but because someone had the balls to do it. IMO, the consequences of failure were greater than the rewards of success. Hitler never fully grasped the ability of Canada and the United States to produce battlefield material faster than it could be sunk. He never adapted to the changing tactics that turned the hunter subs into the hunted. I agree that the infrastructure of the US was invulnerable to attack with the exception of shipyards. A shipyard capable of building battleships and aircraft carriers is something that can’t be duplicated overnight. I believe you could lose between 6 months and 2 years of construction in a naval sucker punch. In retrospect it would be tough to repeat the process but it would not be impossible. I would give heavy odds in favor of defending the shipyards with air defense (after the fact). However, the ability to sink a ship that comes out of the yards reduces those odds. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nazi-earth-was-it-ever-possible/225249.md?page=3)