Here's my take on how Germany could have won WW2

[DudleySmith]

The Engines | Babbage Engine | Computer History Museum

www.computerhistory.org

Babbage considered using number systems other than decimal including binary as well as number bases 3, 4, 5, 12, 16 and 100. He settled for decimal out of engineering efficiency - to reduce the number of moving parts - as well as for their everyday familiarity.

Robert Goddard and the First Liquid-Propellant Rocket

On March 16, 1926, Robert H. Goddard (1882-1945) launched the world’s first liquid-propellant rocket. His rickety contraption smashed on impact. Goddard, his wife Esther, and a couple of assistants from Clark University, where he was a physics professor, were the only witnesses.

airandspace.si.edu

Very little is new under the sun. Copernicus and others built 'computers' for astronomical studies, sailors began using them for navigation early on, etc. Even the Mayans had them. 'Missiles' have been around a while, too. Even 'biological warfare' isn't new; tossing diseased animals and corpses over walls into besieged cities was a popular tactic. principles and tactics all evolve from earlier technology; few 'new' inventions' come along, except in how the delivery systems work. EVen laser weapons aren't a new principle; there is evidence large polished parabolic mirrors were used to set fire to enemy ships by ancient Greeks; it was probably a legend but at least they knew of the possibility of it and had an idea of how it would work theoretically.

 

[Mushroom]

I think that after the split of the NSDAP, part of the Wehrmacht agreed with the United States against Britain,

In other words, you believe in insane conspiracy theories. Got it.

Therefore, nothing else of importance will be coming from you.

 

[Mushroom]

Very little is new under the sun. Copernicus and others built 'computers' for astronomical studies, sailors began using them for navigation early on, etc. Even the Mayans had them. 'Missiles' have been around a while, too.

Those ancient "computers" were entirely mechanical, and closer to a slide rule than an actual "computer" as people today think of them. Under the loosest of definitions, even the carts that the ancient Greeks and used to push around to determine the distance at which to place Mile Markers is a "computer".

And the analog computers that Battleships used were also "computers", but not the kind that people use today.

The problem with throwing things around is that you have to remember what the previous generations of the word usage mean. If you go up to somebody today and say "computer", they will only think of the modern electronic one that is entirely solid state, and will likely have no moving parts outside of the disk drives. And if you are talking about a mechanical computer as was done in here, the poster should clarify that and not just assume that because it is a "computer" that it is the same thing used today.

Because such computers are closer to the Antikythera mechanism than they are something you would buy from Dell.

 

[DudleySmith]

Those ancient "computers" were entirely mechanical, and closer to a slide rule than an actual "computer" as people today think of them. Under the loosest of definitions, even the carts that the ancient Greeks and used to push around to determine the distance at which to place Mile Markers is a "computer".

And the analog computers that Battleships used were also "computers", but not the kind that people use today.

The problem with throwing things around is that you have to remember what the previous generations of the word usage mean. If you go up to somebody today and say "computer", they will only think of the modern electronic one that is entirely solid state, and will likely have no moving parts outside of the disk drives. And if you are talking about a mechanical computer as was done in here, the poster should clarify that and not just assume that because it is a "computer" that it is the same thing used today.

Because such computers are closer to the Antikythera mechanism than they are something you would buy from Dell.

Nah, the problem is you thinking your Reader's Digest and Popular Mechanics collection and a closet full of old Army Times issues makes you an expert on everything, even though you don't know all that much about anything. The only difference is how they worked, and what functions they were used for; being 'mechanical' versus 'electronic' doesn't mean a thing, unless you think relays aren't 'mechanical' or something. Even the binary number system isn't new.

 

[Mushroom]

Nah, the problem is you thinking your Reader's Digest and Popular Mechanics collection and a closet full of old Army Times issues makes you an expert on everything, even though you don't know all that much about anything. The only difference is how they worked, and what functions they were used for; being 'mechanical' versus 'electronic' doesn't mean a thing, unless you think relays aren't 'mechanical' or something. Even the binary number system isn't new.

No, the difference is that I understand the differences between the two.

So you know why a lot of the early advances in computers was done by Phone Companies? AT&T and Bell Labs were two of the premiere computer research groups in the country. And because they were literally on the cutting edge of the development and use of mechanical computers. Which most people never realized, because it was not for sale to outsiders but only internally. All those clicks from the old phones literally was "programming" a massive network, composed of entirely mechanical computers that operated via relays.

And when the "electronic computers" broke out in the 1950's, they were on the forefront of such research, because they wanted to modernize their own system. The same with fiber optics, they were leading that charge decades before most people had even heard of it.

But the difference is how the data is taken into the processor core, and then analyzed. The actual input means really does not matter, it can be bunch cards, somebody at a keyboard, or a signal from across the planet sent digitally. It is how the core (CPU, use the term you like) uses to process that information and arrive at a solution. Mechanical computers use relays, cogs, wheels, or some other mechanism to arrive at the solution. Electronic computers use nothing but tubes or transistors to determine the logic flow to arrive at an outcome. Even the most cutting edge computer in use in the world today is largely just a larger copy of those used at Bletchley Park towards the end.

Which by the way changed from those used at the beginning because those really were just mechanical computers. Using punch cards to sort through trends, as all other tabulating machines had done for over half a century before that.

As for my "Readers Digest" version, I am writing in a manner that most people will understand what I am saying. Carefully trying to avoid all jargon and using common laymans terms. Oh sure, I could talk about my days punching 80 column cards an running them through IBM System 360 mainframes, when waiting for the output on green-white 80 column tractor paper, but why? I have little doubt that only a few would really know what I just said, it is simply before they were born, or way outside of their experience.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The U.S. approved "lend-lease" aid to the Soviets on October 30, 1941. Unless the U.S. was already providing significant aid, it seems extremely unlikely that American aid was the deciding factor in stalling the German advance in late, 1941.

The British were providing a serious amount of aid to the Soviets long before Lend Lease. Most of the “heavy” tanks defending Moscow were British because Soviet production was stalled moving the factories behind the aural.

 

[badbob85037]

I've been listening to the book:
Ivan's War: The Red Army at War 1939-45


I've long been a skeptic of the theory that Germany could have "won". But I now believe differently.

As you know, the Soviets were dreadfully unprepared for war. Millions of Soviets surrendered to the Germans in 1941. Had the Germans had a different strategy, they could have persuaded those millions of Soviets, along with all of Ukraine, the residents of the Baltic States, the Fins, and more to join them to fight Stalin.

Initially, Soviet troops were eager to surrender rather than face certain death fighting the Germans. According to the book, as the war went on, Soviet soldiers learned of the horrific atrocities that the German SS was committing. As well, they learned of the horrific fate of their comrades in German captivity. Soldiers went from being willing to surrender to fighting until death.

There are three things Hitler would have needed to avoid. One, he would have needed to be content in owning all of Poland and abandoning his plan of "Lebensraum" in Ukraine and the Baltic states as well as Russia. Two, Hitler would have needed to abandon the "Final Solution". Hitler could have deported all of the Jews to France, etc., but putting them into death camps could have definitely been a deal killer. Three, no declaration of war on the U.S. Obviously, I'm taking liberties but whenever discussing alternate history. one is going to take such liberties.

It's probably LIKELY that many Soviet officers, still reeling from the executions of their former comrades (Stalin's purges), would have gladly joined the efforts to remove Stalin. Hell, someone close to Stalin may have simply shot him and that would have been the end of the war and the end of the Soviet Union.

Thoughts?

Hitler's love of meth cost them the war.

 

[fncceo]

, I could talk about my days punching 80 column cards an running them through IBM System 360 mainframes, when waiting for the output on green-white 80 column tractor paper,

So depressing that I do know...

 

[Mindful]

Not to forget the notoriously fickle weather of the English Channel.

 

[AZrailwhale]

In fact, Germany started the war with a decisive edge of both the US and Britain in surface vessels. The Bismark, along with her sister-ship, the Tirpitz, were the largest, most modern battleship in the Atlantic. The Graf Spree and other "pocket battleships", as well as the fastest cruisers afloat, referred to as "merchant raiders", were initially sinking more allied tonnage than U-Boats.

Unfortunately for The Nazis, even the faster, more powerful ships of the German Navy were no match for the newest weapon, air power.

You need to read some real history. Bismarck and Tirpitz were barely two knots faster than the KG Vs and there were four KG Vs. That minor speed advantage cost the Germans nearly seven thousand tons. The only thing it gained the Germans was the ability to refuse battle under ideal conditions. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were inferior in every way to the KG Vs. The “pocket battleships” were over-gunned heavy cruisers That never won an engagement against real warships. The Hippers were oversized with temperamental power plants and short range. The various light cruisers were inferior designs that lacked seaworthiness. The German Navy was totally outclassed by the RN and barely a match for the French Navy.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The German advance had already stalled before significant American aid reached the Soviets. The reality is that the Germans bit off more than they could chew and lacked the forces to crush the Soviets. Once the Soviets recovered, the fate of Germany was sealed. Even if the allies hadn't invaded western Europe, the Soviets would still have defeated the Germans.

The Soviets were receiving large amounts of aid from the UK practically as soon as Barbarossa began.

 

[zaangalewa]

Here's my take on how Germany could have won WW2​

We did not win World War 2? Damn!




Lass Hocker, Tassen und Teller stehen
Nimm nur deine Flausen mit
Da kommt ein Schiff das auf uns wartet
Jetzt halten wir nicht mehr Schritt
Der Text weiß immer zuerst Bescheid
Und das Drehbuch ist längst gemacht
Wer heut Rettung von unseren Schlafliedern will
Schimpft umsonst an die Nacht
Wo′s blutet machen wir Reime drauf
Und den Fleck kriegen wir wieder raus
Reise Reise mein Liebster
Heute wandern wir aus
Und überhaupt wer Rettung von uns erwartet
Ist ganz allein daran Schuld
Und überhaupt wer Rettung erwartet
Braucht neuerdings viel Geduld

Und wenn sie Fluchen und Hauen nach uns
Und sich nachher dafür wieder schämen
Wir sind längst auf und davon gebraust
Mit diesem Esel und dem Hahn Richtung
Na du weißt schon
Und wir rennen über glühende Kohlen
Hand in Hand mit Schuhe aus
Reise Reise mein Liebster
Heute wandern wir aus

Und wer sagt wir fallen gewiss aufs Maul
Der kann uns mal gern haben bitte
Wir nehmen uns einmal alles mit viel
Und Sahne und Streusel in die Mitte
Und der Himmel soll unser Kompass
Und die Rohrspatzen Schnuppe sein
Und ein Bus mit rotzigen Melodien
Fährt über die A9
Wo's schön ist machen wir Kreuzchen
Wo wir küssen da ist Zuhaus
Reise, Reise mein Liebster
Heute wandern wir aus

Und jedem sein eigenes Lied ins Ohr
Und jedem nur das was er will
Ey die Herzklappen offen bis Bagdad
Und die Bäuche voll Bauchgefühl
Bezahlt haben wir doch schon lange
Nun lass dir nichts anderes sagen
Und jetzt gönn dir und lass dir die Locken wachsen
Und hör auf um Erlaubnis zu fragen
Wo′s kalt ist machen wir Feuer
Und Montags schlafen wir aus
Reise Reise mein Liebster
Und immer geradeaus

Und immer geradeaus

Und immer geradeaus

Und wir wünschen und wollen und klettern
Bis über den Tellerrand und weiter
Reise Reise mein Liebster
Reise Reise Räuberleiter

 

[Flash]

The German advance had already stalled before significant American aid reached the Soviets. The reality is that the Germans bit off more than they could chew and lacked the forces to crush the Soviets. Once the Soviets recovered, the fate of Germany was sealed. Even if the allies hadn't invaded western Europe, the Soviets would still have defeated the Germans.

There is a difference between stalling the Germans and defeating them

What you say is true. The Russians were able to halt the German advance at great cost in man power.

However, to push the Germans back and eventually crush them the Soviets needed American trucks, planes and even tanks. The Soviets had a great main battle tank in the T-38 but they used American supplied Pershings for infantry support. The trucks America suppiled enabled the Soviets to get men and material to the front. After all, it is always logistics that wins a war.

Another thing the Allies did was cut off German access to Middle East oil. The invasion of Italy and France tied up a million German soldiers. Incessant bombing of German war production by American and UK forces kept much needed supplies from reaching the troops invading Russia. The Allies also prevented the Germans from having air superiority.

The defeat of Germany was joint Allied effort.

 

[rupol2000]

We did not win World War 2? Damn!

No, you didn't and couldn't win. The Prussians who subdued you just used you as cannon fodder

 

[Mushroom]

Most of the “heavy” tanks defending Moscow were British

Well, yeah. The Soviets, British, and Germans were really the only countries even making heavy tanks at the time. The closest the US came was "Tank Destroyers", but those were something completely different.

 

[Zebra]

I've been listening to the book:
Ivan's War: The Red Army at War 1939-45


I've long been a skeptic of the theory that Germany could have "won". But I now believe differently.

As you know, the Soviets were dreadfully unprepared for war. Millions of Soviets surrendered to the Germans in 1941. Had the Germans had a different strategy, they could have persuaded those millions of Soviets, along with all of Ukraine, the residents of the Baltic States, the Fins, and more to join them to fight Stalin.

Initially, Soviet troops were eager to surrender rather than face certain death fighting the Germans. According to the book, as the war went on, Soviet soldiers learned of the horrific atrocities that the German SS was committing. As well, they learned of the horrific fate of their comrades in German captivity. Soldiers went from being willing to surrender to fighting until death.

There are three things Hitler would have needed to avoid. One, he would have needed to be content in owning all of Poland and abandoning his plan of "Lebensraum" in Ukraine and the Baltic states as well as Russia. Two, Hitler would have needed to abandon the "Final Solution". Hitler could have deported all of the Jews to France, etc., but putting them into death camps could have definitely been a deal killer. Three, no declaration of war on the U.S. Obviously, I'm taking liberties but whenever discussing alternate history. one is going to take such liberties.

It's probably LIKELY that many Soviet officers, still reeling from the executions of their former comrades (Stalin's purges), would have gladly joined the efforts to remove Stalin. Hell, someone close to Stalin may have simply shot him and that would have been the end of the war and the end of the Soviet Union.

Thoughts?

unfortunately Hitler did not think logically


he had other plans with Russia


idiotic racist plans
without sense or reason


that was his downfall … and the downfall of Germany

 

[Zebra]

Hitler himself was both the cause for the rise of Nazi Germany, and it's fall

True!

 

[ReinyDays]

unfortunately Hitler did not think logically


he had other plans with Russia


idiotic racist plans
without sense or reason


that was his downfall … and the downfall of Germany

At every turn, every decision was made for the best of the Nazi Party, and not Germany ... Slavs and Jews must die ... or the Party fails ...

Hitler though the USA was run by Jews when it was in fact run by Germans ... big mistake there ...

 

[Mac-7]

But that wouldn't have stopped the Soviets.

Germany failed to defeat Britain before invading russia