Any way for the Germans to win the Eastern front?

[Ideologue]

Aside from Crete, which while the Germans won essentially destroyed their crack airborne troops, the Germans used very little in the way of resources in the Balkan campaign.

I went to the German military cemetery on Crete.  Only historical war thing I've ever been to, except a couple minor US Civil War sites.  It was surprisingly moving.  Though filled with a lot of platitudes about working for peace, which I'm sure would not impress the Languish crowd.

Peace is fine once the enemies foreign and domestic have all been destroyed.

The old man we were staying with made me engage in an extended colloquy in broken English about how terrible Bush is (this was 2005), then showed me all of British military awards and described killing a German paratrooper with a pitchfork when he was 14. 

Makes sense to me.

What's the strategic rationale for attacking Crete in the first place?

Pursue the British evacuees from Greece and deny Britain a base.  Arguable how good those are.

[Razgovory]

Or how about a "Hitler dies (plane crash or assassination) in 1938" (sometime after the annexation of Austria) and Chancellor Goering chooses diplomatic schmoozing over war.

Presuming Himmler doesn't decide to off the fat man and take over himself.

But either way, all that, and then Stalin invades...

So German army with less operational experience and less time spent on war footing with the Soviets having the initiative?  Also they would have Poland in the way.  I'm not sure Germany could have escaped it's creditors with out the war.  The German economy was surviving on schemes and tricks to finance rearming.  This kind of thing wasn't going to last forever.  In fact HJalmar Schact thought this would blow up in their faces fairly soon.  The longer the peace, the more chance this would collapse the Germany economy.  The war prevented creditors to demand back their money.

[Ideologue]

Well, on the plus side for Germany, an invasion of Poland by the USSR would have brought Britain, France, and Germany together.

Didn't Germany repudiate its debt prior to the war, too?  I don't know that much about that aspect of the antebellum period.

[Iormlund]

There is only one way for Germany to win the war: it has to swiftly and decisively crush the Brits in the Battle of the Atlantic. Once Albion is isolated the Americans are out of the picture and the Soviet Union stands alone.

Possibly, but Germany lacked the means to decisively crush the British in the Battle of the Atlantic.

I don't think they lacked the means. What they lacked was motivation -- which they found in a hurry in 1943 -- to develop a new doctrine.

[jimmy olsen]

How much evidence is there that the Soviets were contemplating betraying the Germans on such short notice? 1941 seems much too early to me.

[Tonitrus]

How much evidence is there that the Soviets were contemplating betraying the Germans on such short notice? 1941 seems much too early to me.

I agree, probably '43-45 is more likely.

Or not at all.  I kinda doubt Stalin would be interested in occupying all of Western Europe.  But it's hard to tell before the spectre of nuclear annihilation got in the way of such things.

[jimmy olsen]

Might the Germans have better spent their time in '41 trying for a knock out blow in North Africa in order to force the British to sue for peace, so that they could concentrate all of their power on the Soviets in a '42 campaign?

[Tonitrus]

There isn't any good lebensraum in the Sahara.

[Neil]

Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?

Interesting. Are the Germans in the midsts of their Barbarossa build-up when Stalin gets froggy?

Or how about a "Hitler dies (plane crash or assassination) in 1938" (sometime after the annexation of Austria) and Chancellor Goering chooses diplomatic schmoozing over war.

Presuming Himmler doesn't decide to off the fat man and take over himself.

Himmler doesn't have the juice to take on Goering before Barbarossa.  Sure, the SS was powerful, but Goering was enormously popular.  If Himmler moved against Goering, the Wehrmacht would crush the SS like an egg.

[Tonitrus]

I would think Himmler would be more shrewd than to make an open play, but rather stage an "accident" for Goering.

I agree, Goering had the edge, though in '38, Hess was still a nominative (if not real) factor.

But the main point was that probably only Hitler or Himmler would lead to a World War.  Goering would never risk war, and be content with schmoozing European diplomats, partake of narcotics and ride the Hitler-mourning train until he overdoses on opiates.

[Ed Anger]

Goering would make a good Sir Topham Hatt.

[grumbler]

Might the Germans have better spent their time in '41 trying for a knock out blow in North Africa in order to force the British to sue for peace, so that they could concentrate all of their power on the Soviets in a '42 campaign?

The Soviets would have been a much tougher foe in 1942.  What the Germans might have gained by freeing up DAK or even temporarily shutting down the Suez canal would have been outweighed by the increased readiness and modernization of the Red Army and Air Force. 

The Germans may not have been capable of knocking out the British in the desert.  There weren't the logistics (particularly port space) to support even the troops they had there.  They would have had to withdraw probably three Italian divisions for every one of their own that they added, and that would have been difficult.

Now, if they had simply taken over the French colonies in North Africa, then the port restrictions would be lifted.  OTOH, that would have given the British a significant new ally, and a new front that was much easier for Britain to support than for Germany.  Not to mention the possibility that such an attack might draw in the US.

[jimmy olsen]

Might the Germans have better spent their time in '41 trying for a knock out blow in North Africa in order to force the British to sue for peace, so that they could concentrate all of their power on the Soviets in a '42 campaign?

The Soviets would have been a much tougher foe in 1942.  What the Germans might have gained by freeing up DAK or even temporarily shutting down the Suez canal would have been outweighed by the increased readiness and modernization of the Red Army and Air Force. 

The Luftwaffe in the west would be transferred to the East as well, as would some of the occupation forces, but I see your point.

[Tonitrus]

And then there's still that pesky attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, which probably wouldn't depend on Barbarossa having taken place or not.

[Neil]

Even if Goering dies, I can't see how Himmler can seize power before the war.