Any way for the Germans to win the Eastern front?

[The Brain]

I never played SS Amerika.

[The Minsky Moment]

Very unlikely.

It's true that Putin's authority has been compromised and the Russian army is a hollow shell of the hold Soviet forces.  But Germany doesn't have much of an offensive striking force, and Merkel is too cautious to roll the dice, even with Polish cooperation.  The one long shot would be somehow tricking the Russians into the Eurozone (thus collapsing their economy) but Putin is far too wily to fall for that one.

[Iormlund]

Meh.

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.

[grumbler]

Or invading earlier. If Germany started the invasion even a few weeks earlier, they could have arrived much closer to Moscow before the autumn rains started. The original invasion date was in may, IIRC, and it was delayed because of the Balkans campaign.

Weather precluded the May start, and thus allowed Merika to proceed. This is addressed by General von Senger in Neither Fear nor Hope.

Also, once the invasion began the army group aiming for Moscow was at some point diverted southwards to support the campaign in Ukraine, which delayed their advance towards Moscow.

Just as they had diverted the German army away from Paris and towards the Channel in 1940.  Army Group Center was not in a position to attack Moscow yet, due to supply considerations.  A lateral move was possible, though, and defeat of the enemy armies in the field had resulted in a quick capture of an enemy capital in the past.

One can argue that the extra wear and tear on the men and machines that resulted from the diversion of forces to the Balkans and Kiev was a factor in slowing the German advance, but I don't think it was a decisive one.  Plus, the Soviets would have been much stronger in front of Moscow if they had had the men they lost in the Kiev pocket.

Also, the nazis had no problem justifying the cuddling of slavic populations when it suited their needs, so they could have done the same in Ukraine if they wanted.

I agree with this, but I also think the Germans had lost the war by the time this would have yielded any fruits.

[The Brain]

To bring the English to heel Hitler must bleed the French white.

[grumbler]

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.

[Ideologue]

Very unlikely.

It's true that Putin's authority has been compromised and the Russian army is a hollow shell of the hold Soviet forces.  But Germany doesn't have much of an offensive striking force, and Merkel is too cautious to roll the dice, even with Polish cooperation.  The one long shot would be somehow tricking the Russians into the Eurozone (thus collapsing their economy) but Putin is far too wily to fall for that one.

[Kleves]

If the Soviets don't play Sorge on time, they might be in trouble.

[jimmy olsen]

Ok, but how do they do that? Weren't they basically forced to halt their central thrust towards Moscow because of logistical constraints? The turn south turned out pretty well for them didn't it?

I was not aware it was because of logistical constraints, but strategic ones.  And all it may have taken is having their army equipt for winter action.

Or invading earlier. If Germany started the invasion even a few weeks earlier, they could have arrived much closer to Moscow before the autumn rains started. The original invasion date was in may, IIRC, and it was delayed because of the Balkans campaign. Also, once the invasion began the army group aiming for Moscow was at some point diverted southwards to support the campaign in Ukraine, which delayed their advance towards Moscow.

Also, the nazis had no problem justifying the cuddling of slavic populations when it suited their needs, so they could have done the same in Ukraine if they wanted.

Story I've heard is that the "the Italians (fatally) delayed 'em" account is pretty much a myth - that because of a late spring Rasputitsa, the invasion could not have been launched earlier than it was.

Still wouldn't they be in a better position if they hadn't had to wast men and supplies on a pointless Balkan campaign?

[jimmy olsen]

Any reasonable scenario that has Germany winning the war with the Soviet Union has a very quick victory by Germany, so the war would be over by 1942 or so. Even if Germany would need huge amounts of manpower to occupy the East, it would free virtually all of the air force to fight in the West. With more resources devoted to air defense, Germany wouldn't be nearly as vulnerable as it was in reality, especially not by 1945 when it should have jet fighters. And it might still have enough resources to retalitate with chemical weapons in V2s to nuclear strikes...

Chemical weapons aren't really in the same league.

I also suspect that V2 delivery of WW2-era chemical weapons would be a pretty lossy affair.

The Germans had nerve gas.

[The Larch]

Ok, but how do they do that? Weren't they basically forced to halt their central thrust towards Moscow because of logistical constraints? The turn south turned out pretty well for them didn't it?

I was not aware it was because of logistical constraints, but strategic ones.  And all it may have taken is having their army equipt for winter action.

Or invading earlier. If Germany started the invasion even a few weeks earlier, they could have arrived much closer to Moscow before the autumn rains started. The original invasion date was in may, IIRC, and it was delayed because of the Balkans campaign. Also, once the invasion began the army group aiming for Moscow was at some point diverted southwards to support the campaign in Ukraine, which delayed their advance towards Moscow.

Also, the nazis had no problem justifying the cuddling of slavic populations when it suited their needs, so they could have done the same in Ukraine if they wanted.

Story I've heard is that the "the Italians (fatally) delayed 'em" account is pretty much a myth - that because of a late spring Rasputitsa, the invasion could not have been launched earlier than it was.

Still wouldn't they be in a better position if they hadn't had to wast men and supplies on a pointless Balkan campaign?

They'd have to go anyway, as they needed to prevent Britain from getting entrenched in Greece and setting up airfields within bombing range of Ploesti and its vital oil for the German war effort. Also, after strong-arming Yugoslavia into joining the Axis, it got couped and an anti German king placed on it, so they couldn't afford to have such a hostile country nearby.

Then again the Balkan campaign was pure overkill, as both countries, Yugoslavia and Greece, were ran over in less than a month, except for Crete, which took another month. Germany could have sent less troops there and get the same results, although in a bit more time, of course. They could have also ignored Crete altogether, I guess.

[Ideologue]

Any reasonable scenario that has Germany winning the war with the Soviet Union has a very quick victory by Germany, so the war would be over by 1942 or so. Even if Germany would need huge amounts of manpower to occupy the East, it would free virtually all of the air force to fight in the West. With more resources devoted to air defense, Germany wouldn't be nearly as vulnerable as it was in reality, especially not by 1945 when it should have jet fighters. And it might still have enough resources to retalitate with chemical weapons in V2s to nuclear strikes...

Chemical weapons aren't really in the same league.

I also suspect that V2 delivery of WW2-era chemical weapons would be a pretty lossy affair.

The Germans had nerve gas.

Which could withstand without denaturing what kind of temperatures?  I have no idea.

[Admiral Yi]

Still wouldn't they be in a better position if they hadn't had to wast men and supplies on a pointless Balkan campaign?

The invasion of Yugoslavia cost the Krauts something like 17 casualties.

[The Larch]

Still wouldn't they be in a better position if they hadn't had to wast men and supplies on a pointless Balkan campaign?

The invasion of Yugoslavia cost the Krauts something like 17 casualties.

Almost. According to wiki:

- Yugoslavia: 152 dead, 392 wounded.
- Continental Greece: 1099 dead, 3752 wounded.
- Crete: 2124 dead, 1917 missing and presumed dead, 2640 wounded.

[Habbaku]

None of which includes the casualties incurred while occupying those countries.