Would the Nazis have won WWII if Hitler didn't assume personal command decisions?

Question

It seems as though he made a number of tactical blunders.. so what do ya guys think, alternative historians, would the Nazis have won had Hitler left it up to the pros? On all decisions, including attacking the Russians etc.

Answer 1

Hitler was uneven as a military warlord. While some of his moves were absolutely brilliant, others were less so. His conquest of France--a feat he managed against the advice of his highest-ranking military commanders--was brilliant, but his failure to conquer Britain was a game-changer and his fault directly.

However, without Hitler's leadership at certain key points, the fate of German arms would have been quite different. While Hitler's biggest strategic mistake was in attacking the Soviet Union, his subsequent leadership made it possible for Germany to stay in the war much longer than if any other high-ranking German general had been in charge. A case in point was the winter of 1941-1942. Without Hitler's determination to hold his ground in face of the overwhelming opinion of his generals that a retreat was in order, the war could well have been lost for Germany in 1942. Here is how General Alfred Jodl put it at Nuremberg:

From Jodl's testimony before the IMT: Hitler was a leader to an exceptional degree. His knowledge and his intellect, his rhetoric, and his will power triumphed in the end in every spiritual conflict over everyone. He combined to an unusual extent logic and clarity of thought, skepticism and excess of imagination, which very frequently foresaw what would happen, but also very often went astray. I really marveled at him when in the winter of 1941-42, by his faith and his energy, he established the wavering Eastern Front; for at that time, as in 1812, a catastrophe was imminent.

Of course, after the war many of Hitler's generals would point to this or that decision of Hitler's that went badly and claim that if only 'the Fuehrer had listened to me' it would have turned out differently. In some cases a case could be made, but of course, as in the case above, Hitler was often right as well.

Hitler made all his big mistakes on the strategic level: Failing to invade Britain, attacking the USSR, declaring war on the USA, etc.. However, his tactical, battlefield decisions were often superior to those of his generals, and served to keep the Germans in the war for five long years. So, as I said, it was a mixed bag.

But the major conclusion must be that Hitler's War was a mistake because there was no real hope that he would be able to defeat all the enemies he made. There is no way that Hitler could have been victorious in both the East and the West. His failure to limit the war to one front was, in the end, his biggest military blunder. A war on both fronts was just not winnable. It was Hitler's decision to attack the USSR after being unable to conquer Britain, and that is what did him in.

Below is a Yahoo! Group of experts able to answer questions such as these with authority. All are welcome to join.
.

Answer 2

This isn't really history, and I doubt any Best Answer will actually be the best answer since it's all down to opinion and point of view, but here goes. Simple numbered lists so it's easier to understand. 1) Having the Japanese attack the USSR as well, and persuading them not to attack the USA. That would have still left Britain as the only opposing power in the West. 2) Changing strategies. Hitler may have been a genius (I don't know), but he should have known when to change from the Blitzkrieg tactics. Also, he should have focused on the oil fields and strategically important locations. And, most importantly, known when to give up and move on (Stalingrad, Leningrad). 3) I would say no Holocaust, and treating the Soviets more fairly, but that would go against the very core of Nazi beliefs, wouldn't it? So I'll leave that out. 4) Researching into opposing forces in the USSR, and helping these forces create distractions within the country. Guerilla warfare can be extremely successful. And, it's much cheaper than launching a full scale invasion. If you have the right tactics, good organisational and leading skills, then this could have proven fatal. 5) Coordinating with Japan. If Germany did get Japan to declare war on the USSR, then what they could have done, is coordinate their attacks. This would divide the Red Army, much like what happened to Germany with the Allies and the USSR. 6) Focused on Moscow. Once Moscow was taken, panic would automatically ensue. Plus, with the guerilla warfare tactics, Hitler could increase support among the ordinary peasants, who were, most likely, sick of, as I like to call it, pseudo-Communism. This could have led to a case similar as in Vietnam. 7) As far as Stalingrad is concerned, this was indeed a turning point in the war. Hitler was indeed childish here. See, the city's called STALINgrad. Stalin was the leader of the USSR. Similar case in LENINgrad. He wanted to have some self satisfaction, and like, show his might to the Soviet leaders. 8) He should have taken some initiative towards the Bolsheviks in Russia. He thought the ordinary people would automatically come out in support of the Nazis, however, if he went and did a Holocaust, as far as the Russians could see it, it was a choice between the greater evil. And they believed Germany to be the greater evil. 9) China, which was in a state of anarchy at the moment could have also helped. See, if Japan signed a ceasefire with China (ROC), then much of its resources could have been saved. The way I see it, what they could have done is propped up the Nationalists, and poured money into their war effort. This way, not only would they have massive influence in China, but the USA would also approve of them (the USA was also helping the Nationalists in China). 10) Russia can be conquered. There is no force on Earth that cannot be conquered. Russia is no exception. Russia has been conquered in the past. The Mongols did it. And if they could, why can't anyone else?

Answer 3

Some one said of the Nazis, "their Arrogance is only surpassed by their stupidity, which is only surpassed by their brutality".

Hitler organized the state with 1000 gauliters, so it was impossible to get anything done with out him. This protected him politically, but it was a fatal flaw in a commander in chief. Hitler believed in force of will would overcome all obstacles. So sending troops to Russia with out winter coats, no problem. But this myopia was not hitlers alone. The entire Nazi movement suffered from it.

Wars are won by the side with the most tanks. The first thing the Nazis did after they invaded Poland was shut down the factories and sell the equipment for scrap. After 1940 the Nazis owned the full industrial might of Europe. Yet the steel mills of France were on reduced production the whole time. Not until Allied bombing had decimated German Industry did the Nazis start to use French war production.

The Nazis from Hitler on down were short term thinkers and long term dreamers. To the Nazis, the war would always be over by christmas. So new aircraft were not developed, like the JET fighter. The need to do a deal deal with the French for war production was not tried till too late. The idea of making sure their allies were properly equipped and trained never occurred to the Nazis. If Rommel could have reequipped that Italians to German standards, he would have made it to India.

But that decision was not made by Hitler, but the Nazi bureaucracy, which included the generals.

The generals would have done a better job at defense, and would have sold their lives more dearly. But there were too few germans to defeat any two of the three major allies.

Answer 4

Hitler was a jerk. Without him around it was bound to be better for everybody.

There are people called deniers who claim that the Holocaust didn't happen and that the Jews made it all up. They do things like claim that Hitler was created by America, that FDR was a war criminal, and they apolgize for the Nazis, and claim that "others were worse" than the Nazis, which is very dumb. Guns_are_us is one of these people and if you look at all his answers he claims these things and more. Methinks guns_are_us protests too much. "Waaa! Nobody likes me!!! I am only telling the TRUTH because I am a denier and a revisionist. Why don't you all see that I am smarter than you. Can't you read the same garbage I do? Your thumbs down hurt my little feelings! Waaa!" This is because guns_are_us got Top Contributor by trolling with mutiple accounts. His avatar used to be armouror, but he changed it when one of his multiple accounts was exposed. Ha! Mr "38 years in the blah blah" thinks he can hide his troll nature by such a silly trick. LOL! He has even deleted one of his multiple avatars, benz, in a further attempt to pretend legitimacy, and futher he deleted some of his more blatant troll answers. But he is still the same troll we all know and love. Yeesh, "guns_are_us." What a joke. Even if you change your avatar again, we will still know who you are.

Answer 5

It would not have happened because the whole point of Hitler starting the war in the first place was to attack the Russians.
In his book "Mein Kampf" written in 1924 he described his intention to form a Greater German Empire stretching across Eastern Europe and Russia as far as the Volga.
The intervention of France and Britain in September 1939 when he invaded Poland was a complete shock to him and delayed his invasion of Russia by a year.
His original intention was to invade Russia in 1940 once he had built up his forces in Poland.

Answer 6

it really depends on who was making the command decisions instead of him. enthusiast Nazis are usually not the sanest of people, and everyone in the upper government was so in love with Hitler that he would have held considerable sway in their decision making even if he didn't want to. for the sake of hypothetical, i'll assume that a modern Sun Tzu who somehow had the benefit of hindsight was in command of the German military. in that case, i think the Nazis could have won.

there were two countries that Germany was not going to beat through conventional warfare, no matter how few mistakes they made: the USA and USSR. the whole just-don't-invade-Russia strategy proposed by people with little knowledge of the subject wasn't an option. Hitler was determined to eradicate the "Jewish-Bolshevik menace." as far as he (and all Nazis) were concerned, there could be no victory as long as communism still breathed and as long as the Slavs were independent. the wait-until-you-have-a-bigger-empire strategy doesn't work too well either, as occupied countries don't really pull their weight. Britain controlled India at the time, which means it should have had totally limitless manpower and resources. it didn't, because Indians didn't necessarily speak English and weren't terribly interested in dying for the crown. having England under Nazi control would tie down lots of troops at worst and would net them a few disloyal troops at best.

that said, the Nazis could have won in the USSR. killing 10-20 million people tends to make you plenty of enemies, and a few political defeats could have seen the overthrow of Stalin and the collapse of the Soviet government had it not been for Hitler's policies of genocide, which all his generals said should be put off so as to get the people on their side. also, if Hitler had had the good sense to equip his men for winter (although, to be fair, his advisers all agreed with him that the war would be over by then) and had not diverted his troops to the Ukraine instead of Moscow (that mistake is all on Hitler) German could have fared better militarily.

overall, Germany had a shot as long as it could keep the USA out of it. Hitler didn't have to declare war on them (interestingly, it was the only time he actually declared war instead of just invading) but it seems unlikely that they would have remained outside the war indefinitely. the American public automatically sides with Britain, and the USA was on the brink of war with Germany at the time of Pearl Harbor. the Lend-lease supplied Britain, the USSR, and China with unconditional aid, and there had been several incidents in which American ships that were delivering supplies had exchanged fire with German submarines. also, once we had the nuke, any doubts we might have had about our military prowess would have vanished.

actually, i've changed my mind. the Nazis could not have won, but they could have come close.

Answer 7

I hesitate to disagree slightly with Historational, who is an expert, but I do not believe that the attack on the USSR was in itself a strategic mistake, but that splitting his army into three was the cause of his defeat in the East, and therefore in the war.

Answer 8

The Nazis would have won if Rommel sent the 21st Panzers to Normandy, that's my opinion.

Answer 9

Could Germany Have Won Wwii

Answer 10

if he had ignored england and russia and followed his top generals' advice he would have won easily and controlled the whole of europe , the middle east and north africa, he could then have faced russia, his lack of understanding about russian winters was a major mistake