I am thinking mainly of the European theatre here. I thought there might have already been such a thread, but this was the closest I have found.
My scenario is a little different: instead of necessarily making peace with anyone, Germany pulls back to some defensible position while their forces are still strong enough to do so. Maybe it goes all the way back to their own national borders, so other nations find it harder to justify continuing the offensive against them.
Could they have held out? One subset of this question could be to hold out long enough to develop nuclear missiles to threaten anyone who attacks their borders; or perhaps the Manhattan Project would have made the point moot. But really, I find it more interesting to speculate whether they could have pulled this off with only conventional weapons available on all sides.
There is a similar scenario in the excellent novel Fatherland, by Robert Harris. Set in the 1960s, it shows Germany having “won” the war in the sense that they were not defeated, but they’ve been standing off from the rest of the world with Fortress Europe for decades. Well worth a read.
No. Germany was surrounded by a world that didn’t want them. Maybe before the war went full scale something like that could have happened, but once the major war effort was underway with allied forces in Europe and the Soviets bent on revenge there was no turning back.
So if they had slowly fallen back in early 1942 to their national borders and taken along everything of value they could carry, then continued to devote all their resources to a defensive war, how long could they have held out?
The reason the Cold War remained cold was simple. Nukes. Everybody knew that the risks involved were too great for whatever possible payoff.
In 1939, this was not the case. And the Manhattan Project needed some of the greatest minds of all time backed by the resources of the worlds richest nation. Neither would be available in a 1940’s Cold War. So nuclear weapons are 10-25 years in the future.
Even if a war in 1939 could be avoided, a war generally could not.
Two very big problems with this: they were on the losing end of a war of attrition with nations that were burying them in industrial output. They would still lose from being buried in industrial output and they would lose the raw materials and slave labor they were getting from territory they occupied. The other problem is that while with all other things being equal a defensive stance is stronger than an offensive stance, you can’t win a war by remaining permanently on the defensive, and more importantly all other things weren’t equal.
Not a snowball’s chance in hell that the Allies would have difficulty justifying continuing the war against them. The Soviets had been slated for genocide by the Nazis, and millions of civilians had been killed. They had a score to settle, and besides Stalin didn’t have to justify anything to anyone. The Western Allies were firmly committed to unconditional surrender of Germany being the only acceptable outcome of the war. When in the final days the Germans tried to broker a separate surrender to the Western Allies and not the Soviets:
Again, not a snowball’s chance in hell. To give some metrics:
Production of tanks and self propelled guns
[ul]
[li]Soviet Union 105,251[/li][li]USA 102,410[/li][li]UK 27,896[/li][li]Canada 5,678[/li]
[li]Germany 67,429[/li][/ul]
Production of Artillery
[ul]
[li]Soviet Union 516,648[/li][li]US 257,390[/li][li]UK 124,877[/li][li]Canada 43,552[/li][li]Other Commonwealth 5,215[/li]
[li]Germany 159,147[/li][/ul]
Production of Mortars
[ul]
[li]Soviet Union 200,300[/li][li]US 105,055[/li][li]UK 102,950[/li][li]Other Commonwealth 46,014[/li]
[li]Germany 73,484[/li][/ul]
Production of machine guns (not including sub-machine guns or machine guns fitted to aircraft)
[ul]
[li]Soviet Union 1,477,400[/li][li]US 2,679,840[/li][li]UK 297,336[/li][li]Canada 251,925[/li][li]Other Commonwealth 37,983[/li]
[li]Germany 674,280[/li][/ul]
Production of military trucks
[ul]
[li]Soviet Union 197,100[/li][li]US 2,382,311[/li][li]UK 480,943[/li][li]Canada 815,729[/li]
[li]Germany 345,914[/li][/ul]
Production of combat aircraft -note large numbers of aircraft produced by the western Allies were 4 engine bombers while Germany produced none, the great majority of German production was of single engine fighters to try to combat the Allied 4 engine bombers
[ul]
[li]Soviet Union 143,145[/li][li]US 324,750[/li][li]UK 131,549[/li][li]Canada 16,431[/li][li]Other Commonwealth 3,081[/li]
[li]Germany 119,307[/li][/ul]Note that these German production figures were only possible with the exploitation of resources and people from conquered territory, and there is virtually no oil in Germany, which relied heavily on the Romanian oilfields around Ploesti.
SlackerInc from previous alt-ww ii threads the consensus seems to have been that the only way for Germany to survive WW II with any conquered territory intact is for both the US and USSR to stay out of the war completely.
It’s easy to imagine scenarios in which the US stays neutral, but if Germany hadn’t invaded the USSR then sooner or later Stalin would have invaded instead. Possibly even in 1941 just months after Barbarossa. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
…And, even if somehow the US and USSR stayed out of it, Germany desperately needed oil resources from somewhere. If Germany had never attacked the USSR, stopped conquering in 1941 and switched to defending what they had, they didn’t have any substantial oil fields so eventually they were going to be worn down.
Okay, you all have well convinced me that they could not actually hold out indefinitely. But by this comment, you are saying that the way they did conduct the war could not have been improved on enough to give them an extra year, even?
And did their generals not know this from the start?
(Those Soviet manufacturing numbers are impressive, btw. I may have to borrow those for the debate about the supposed inherent weakness of a non-capitalist economy.)
I think the key thing is, after Barbarossa they were screwed no matter what they did. If you diverge from the time line earlier you can create various scenarios were Nazi Germany lasts a lot longer. The one I’ve seen suggested is that Hitler attacks the middle east instead of the Soviet Union and goes directly for the oil fields of Iraq through Turkey.
eg like this:
But in this scenario, the USSR would still attack a weakened Germany sooner or later and the two front war grinds them down even without the US direct involvement.
I think it depends on when. If it was right after or during the phoney war time period, before or even immediately after the invasion of Denmark and Norway, I think Germany could have pulled it off. After the invasion of the USSR, I don’t think so.
By 1942, there is nothing on heaven and earth that could have convinced the Soviets to stop pushing toward Berlin. Any German retreat just would have made their job easier.
Besides, there *are *no defensible positions between Moscow and Berlin. That’s the whole point.
With a different Prime Minister in Britain… yes, I think a “Cold War” of sorts was entirely possible.
Once France was defeated, it probably seemed to many realistic British politicians that there was no real point continuing the war. It was too late to save Poland, the ostensible reason for going to war in the first place, and the UK simply wasn’t strong enough to defeat the Wehrmacht alone. A very good case could have been made for striking SOME kind of deal with Germany, one that would recognize German dominance of the continent of Europe (for the time being, at least) as a fait accompli while promising that Germany would pose no threats to the British Empire.
Another Prime Minister might not have seen much sense in risking the Empire by fighting to the bitter end to defeat Hitler. Winston Churchill did.
The only problem with this scenario is that France surrendered in June 1940. About three weeks later the Germans started attacking British shipping in the English Channel as a runup to the Battle of Britain. Once that aggression started even Neville Chamberlain wouldn’t have tolerated German domination of the Channel.
I have never bought into the whole, “without Churchill, there would have been a peace agreement after fall of France” argument, since it goes against as Alessan points out 250 years of policy (and as England, even before that to Henry VIII and possibly Edward IV time). Just look at all the ceasefire/peace agreements of the Napoleonic Wars. Even if say…Lord Halifax as Prime Minister… had accepted an armistice in June 1940, it would have been temporary at best, the British would have jumped back in when they had the chance. At this time, the Germans stood more or less alone, againt the largest Empire the world has ever seen.
There would have been “an Empire Strikes Back”. And soon.