PDA

View Full Version : Germany COULD NOT have won World War II


Amnorix
06-21-2005, 02:54 PM
The other thread recently started posits that perhaps a "more sane" leader than Hitler could have led Germany to victory in World War II. That Germany in fact came very close to winning World War II. I suggest that this is incorrect. That Germany, in fact, never had much of a chance of winning World War II, but rather got VERY lucky in many ways to win as much as it did, and that it was still ultimately doomed.

It is, perhaps, remotely possible that IF Italy had not invaded Greece in '41, subsequently requiring German assistance in the Balkans, which delayed Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of Russia), that Germany could have successfully reached Moscow in '41. This might also have been possible if Hitler hadn't repeatedly toyed with his invasion once underway, changing his mind regarding strategic objectives.

Even if Moscow had been captured, however, it's not at all certain that the USSR would have sued for peace or have been rendered unable to gather itself. As it was, Hitler captured vast portions of the most industrial part of the USSR, and the Soviets still managed to get its act together and take effective and permanent control of the Nazi/Soviet front following the summer of '42. It held the initiate for the entire rest of the war on Germany's Eastern front.

Simply stated, a country of approximately 80 million people (Germany), with half-hearted allies (Italy, Rumania, etc.) with poor troops, is simply NOT likely to win a war against multiple countries with hundreds of millions of citizens (USSR, United States) as well as the British Empire.

And, in fact, Hitler/Germany was in many ways very lucky to achieve all that they did. In addition to the unquestionably superior German military leadership and generally excellent German soldiers, it took a combination of stupid political leadership (Chamberlain and Daladier, mostly), stupid military leadership (Gamelin of France and the recently decapitated Russian military), and pure luck, for them to get as far as they did.

Quite honestly, if the US never entered the war, Germany still would have eventually lost to the combined might of Great Britain and the USSR, although it would unquestionably have taken longer to do it. If Russia had been knocked out of the war, it is very hard to see how Germany could have indefinitely defended itself against the United States and Great Britain, especially considering that the latter was developing atomic weaponry and the former was not.

Otter
06-21-2005, 02:59 PM
Both myself and many HISTORIANS disagree with you. Also I think the thread in question was not just win the war but a win/prevent the war circumstance.

:rolleyes:

JimNasium
06-21-2005, 02:59 PM
The biggest mistake Germany made was bombing Pearl Harbor.

Dave Lane
06-21-2005, 02:59 PM
Incorrect but a nice bit of arguement. Had Russia surrendered / collapsed had Hitler not taken 2 months to reduce the Minsk pocket history might have been vastly different. GB could not have stood alone and certainly even when combined with the US it would have been a difficult task at best.

Dave

chagrin
06-21-2005, 03:04 PM
The biggest mistake Germany made was bombing Pearl Harbor.



ROFL

"Forget it he's rolling"

Poster Nutbag
06-21-2005, 03:04 PM
The biggest mistake Germany made was bombing Pearl Harbor.

"Forget it, he's on a roll."

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:05 PM
Both myself and many HISTORIANS disagree with you. Also I think the thread in question was not just win the war but a win/prevent the war circumstance.

:rolleyes:

Second sentence -- correct, which is why I started a new thread. It's a different/tangential topic.

Please identify the historians to which you refer. I have not read too many which explicitly said "boy, were the Allies lucky to win this war. If only Hitler hadn't screwed up X, Y or Z, it would've been all over."

Seriously -- please tell me under what circumstances Hitler could possibly have invaded the United States?

Also, considering the way the war went, there was no chance Hitler could have successfully invaded England, given all that he knew at the time.

JOhn
06-21-2005, 03:05 PM
Why assume that they had to invade the USSR when they did?

Had they fought the battle of Britain correctly, and eliminated them FIRST, thus avoiding the two front war, they could have taken the USSR.

Also had Hitler not made the mistake of declaring war on the USA, it is very likely that Roosevelt would have been unable to convince the public to back a war against Germany, especially if England was all ready toast. The Americans at the time wanted revenge on Japan, and only by Hitlers stupidly providing an excuse for the US to declare war on them were we able to get into the European war with both feet.

Poster Nutbag
06-21-2005, 03:06 PM
"Forget it, he's on a roll."

DOH! Chagrin beat me too it. Probably quoted it right too.

:banghead:

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:08 PM
Incorrect but a nice bit of arguement. Had Russia surrendered / collapsed had Hitler not taken 2 months to reduce the Minsk pocket history might have been vastly different. GB could not have stood alone and certainly even when combined with the US it would have been a difficult task at best.

Dave


What is the goal of warfare? To capture territory or destroy the enemy? The Minsk pocket contained how many Russian troops?

GB did stand alone for over a full year.

I agree if the USSR was knocked out (not a certainty even if Moscow is overrun), then GB/US winning would be "difficult", but it would have happened almost as a certainty. Our technology, industry and populations were all bigger/better.

I'm not saying we would've won in '45. Maybe it takes longer, but IMHO, there's little chance of us losing.

Especially if we carpet atomic bomb Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Munich, etc.... !!!!

KC Dan
06-21-2005, 03:10 PM
Especially if we carpet atomic bomb Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Munich, etc.... !!!!
Can this still be done?

Donger
06-21-2005, 03:10 PM
God, I hate these threads and I'm a f*cking historian.

The only way, IMO, that the NAZIs stood any chance of being victorious in WWII would have been if they had defeated England.

That didn't happen.

So, quit it already.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:11 PM
Why assume that they had to invade the USSR when they did?

Had they fought the battle of Britain correctly, and eliminated them FIRST, thus avoiding the two front war, they could have taken the USSR.

Also had Hitler not made the mistake of declaring war on the USA, it is very likely that Roosevelt would have been unable to convince the public to back a war against Germany, especially if England was all ready toast. The Americans at the time wanted revenge on Japan, and only by Hitlers stupidly providing an excuse for the US to declare war on them were we able to get into the European war with both feet.

Eliminating Britain is far easier said than done. Invading may have been possible, but only if he had kept up the pressure on the RAF and the ports. But the Luftwaffe was also losing planes/men at a prodigious rate. It's unclear that he could have won the Battle of Britain and then carried out a successful invasion, which is what would have been required.

If he could have successfully taken England, then the equation definitely changes.

I agree declaring war on Germany was a mistake of the highest order, as it made our entry into the European war much simpler. But it's unclear whether the US would not have gotten into the European theater with relative speed anyway. Roosevelt had been trying to get us entangled with Germany for quite some time.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:12 PM
God, I hate these threads and I'm a f*cking historian.

The only way, IMO, that the NAZIs stood any chance of being victorious in WWII would have been if they had defeated England.

That didn't happen.

So, quit it already.

it's an internet BB. We ponder/argue/discuss things we have no control over.

Why is this any different?

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:12 PM
God, I hate these threads and I'm a f*cking historian.

Historian in what way? Amateur, professional, teacher, professor, author???

duncan_idaho
06-21-2005, 03:13 PM
Amnorix,

My whole scenario was based upon Germany keeping the peace treaty with the Soviet Union until Great Britain had been conquered. Germany could have devoted far fewer troops to the eastern front had it been solely a defensive barrier. This almost certainly would have ensured the defeat of Great Britain. So then Germany would have been able to regroup and possibly retool (wait a few years and replenish numbers) before invading the Soviet Union.

With all of Western Europe under German control, the United States would have had a much tougher time getting its troops in position to do anything... every operation would have had to be like D-Day. That makes it much less desirable to get involved. As for nuclear capability, at the time bomber tech was not capable of delivering a nuke from the U.S. east coast to the heart of Germany. So unless the U.S. wanted to nuke millions of innocents in Britain or France, that wouldn't have made much difference. And even if the U.S. could deliver the nukes, would that really have deterred Hitler?

So the U.S. is mostly out of things, and the Soviets have to deal with Germany by themselves. If Japan still attacks the U.S., we aren't going to get help from the Soviets in defeating Japan. If Japan turns its war machine to the USSR... doom for the Soviets.

Donger
06-21-2005, 03:14 PM
What is the goal of warfare? To capture territory or destroy the enemy? The Minsk pocket contained how many Russian troops?

GB did stand alone for over a full year.

I agree if the USSR was knocked out (not a certainty even if Moscow is overrun), then GB/US winning would be "difficult", but it would have happened almost as a certainty. Our technology, industry and populations were all bigger/better.

I'm not saying we would've won in '45. Maybe it takes longer, but IMHO, there's little chance of us losing.

Especially if we carpet atomic bomb Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Munich, etc.... !!!!

More importantly, what if the Axis powers agreed not to have the Japanese attack PH? The Soviet Union gone, US wouldn't enter the war, Germany leaves England alone (never really wanted to attack her anyway) It would have ended, and we wouldn't have done a thing about it.

*EDIT: Great. Now I'm doing it.

Hoover
06-21-2005, 03:15 PM
But what if Bill Billecheck (SP) was leading the Gremans?

Did you really need your own thread for this?

Donger
06-21-2005, 03:15 PM
Historian in what way? Amateur, professional, teacher, professor, author???

Almost got my doctorate. But, my occupation has nothing to do with history.

C-Mac
06-21-2005, 03:16 PM
"Forget it, he's on a roll."


" Who's with me....?"

JOhn
06-21-2005, 03:16 PM
Eliminating Britain is far easier said than done. Invading may have been possible, but only if he had kept up the pressure on the RAF and the ports. But the Luftwaffe was also losing planes/men at a prodigious rate. It's unclear that he could have won the Battle of Britain and then carried out a successful invasion, which is what would have been required.

If he could have successfully taken England, then the equation definitely changes.

I agree declaring war on Germany was a mistake of the highest order, as it made our entry into the European war much simpler. But it's unclear whether the US would not have gotten into the European theater with relative speed anyway. Roosevelt had been trying to get us entangled with Germany for quite some time.
Not being a smart ass, but you need to read up on the battle of Britain, as the Germans were within days of defeating them, had they not switched to bombing English cities. The RAF was in it's death troes, this according to the RAF and all the history written about it.

With this position, Churchill very likely would have been thrown out, paving the way for a separate peace with England and Germany ( Vichy France ) if not an out right invasion.

Either scenario would have left German in the position to devote it's full military might against the USSR, and assuming Hitler let the Generals fight the war, the Soviets were toast.

Brock
06-21-2005, 03:17 PM
Raiders thread.

JimNasium
06-21-2005, 03:17 PM
But what if Bill Billecheck (SP) was leading the Gremans?

Did you really need your own thread for this?
What if he was leading an entire army of mini-Ditkas?

jspchief
06-21-2005, 03:19 PM
What is exactly is the criteria for "winning"?

I think it's hard to debate this topic since we can't say what "winning" was for the Nazis. Would they have ever tried to invade the US?

We know that beating the Germans constituted a "win" for our side. But we don't know where an intelligently lead Nazi army would have stopped.

Iowanian
06-21-2005, 03:20 PM
I like it when posters have the nerd muscle flexing posedowns.

Your speedos are gross.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:20 PM
But what if Bill Billecheck (SP) was leading the Gremans?

Did you really need your own thread for this?


It's fugging late June. Draft is over. TC is many weeks away.

You got something more relevant/exciting to talk about? Feel free. But we're in the dregs of summer. I mean, I could start another "look at these nice tits" thread, but...

JimNasium
06-21-2005, 03:21 PM
It's fugging late June. Draft is over. TC is many weeks away.

You got something more relevant/exciting to talk about? Feel free. But we're in the dregs of summer. I mean, I could start another "look at these nice tits" thread, but...
This post is worthless without pics.

Donger
06-21-2005, 03:21 PM
Not being a smart ass, but you need to read up on the battle of Britain, as the Germans were within days of defeating them, had they not switched to bombing English cities. The RAF was in it's death troes, this according to the RAF and all the history written about it.

With this position, Churchill very likely would have been thrown out, paving the way for a separate peace with England and Germany ( Vichy France ) if not an out right invasion.

Either scenario would have left German in the position to devote it's full military might against the USSR, and assuming Hitler let the Generals fight the war, the Soviets were toast.

I don't think that Amnorix was saying any different.

As a little historical aside, did you know that the Germans first dropped bombs on London by accident? A HE111 crew got lost and ended up (unbeknownst to them them) over London. They figured it was time to head back east and unloaded their bombs. Of course, this led to a retaliatory attack on Germany by Bomber Command, which led to Hitler getting his panties in a bunch and switching the primary targets from the RAF bases to the cities.

History's funny that way. One lone crew turned the course of human history, maybe.

JOhn
06-21-2005, 03:21 PM
Our technology, industry and populations were all bigger/better.



That is simply not true by any stretch of the imagination.

We simply out produced them by shear numbers. As an example our best aircraft and armor were junk compared to their best. :eek:

Saulbadguy
06-21-2005, 03:23 PM
Ha ha, the Ukraine. Do you know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine.

Rain Man
06-21-2005, 03:23 PM
I think WWII was winnable for Germany, but it depends on how you define victory.

Point 1. Stay the heck out of the Soviet Union until you've beaten England.

Point 2. Stay the heck out of the Soviet Union, period, until you reach Point 4 below.

Point 3. Apologize like heck to America for anything you may be doing to offend them, and don't declare war on them just because Japan got stupid.

Point 4. Define victory as hegemony over western Europe and their colonies. Stop there, and then take on the Soviets about 20 years down the line when Greater Germany is running on all cylinders. America would then come in 50 years.

JOhn
06-21-2005, 03:24 PM
I don't think that Amnorix was saying any different.

As a little historical aside, did you know that the Germans first dropped bombs on London by accident? A HE111 crew got lost and ended up (unbeknownst to them them) over London. They figured it was time to head back east and unloaded their bombs. Of course, this led to a retaliatory attack on Germany by Bomber Command, which led to Hitler getting his panties in a bunch and switching the primary targets from the RAF bases to the cities.

History's funny that way. One lone crew turned the course of human history, maybe.


Yup, I was going to bring that up, but figured specific were not really needed.

Also Churchill was elated by this very fact, as they knew it was an accident, yet let the English public believe it was deliberate.

JimNasium
06-21-2005, 03:26 PM
Ha ha, the Ukraine. Do you know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine.
Let me guess, you used to play a lot of Risk as a kid.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:28 PM
Amnorix,

My whole scenario was based upon Germany keeping the peace treaty with the Soviet Union until Great Britain had been conquered. Germany could have devoted far fewer troops to the eastern front had it been solely a defensive barrier. This almost certainly would have ensured the defeat of Great Britain. So then Germany would have been able to regroup and possibly retool (wait a few years and replenish numbers) before invading the Soviet Union.

With all of Western Europe under German control, the United States would have had a much tougher time getting its troops in position to do anything... every operation would have had to be like D-Day. That makes it much less desirable to get involved. As for nuclear capability, at the time bomber tech was not capable of delivering a nuke from the U.S. east coast to the heart of Germany. So unless the U.S. wanted to nuke millions of innocents in Britain or France, that wouldn't have made much difference. And even if the U.S. could deliver the nukes, would that really have deterred Hitler?

So the U.S. is mostly out of things, and the Soviets have to deal with Germany by themselves. If Japan still attacks the U.S., we aren't going to get help from the Soviets in defeating Japan. If Japan turns its war machine to the USSR... doom for the Soviets.

This definitely doesn't work because delaying invading the USSR works more to the USSR's advantage than Germany's, even if Germany conquers England. The USSR is bringing T-34's online, and might not get caught halfway between an offensive and a defensive stance as it did in '41 when it did get invaded.

IMHO, to have any hope, Germany must knock England out in '40 and invade teh USSR earlier in '41.

Donger
06-21-2005, 03:28 PM
That is simply not true by any stretch of the imagination.

We simply out produced them by shear numbers. As an example our best aircraft and armor were junk compared to their best. :eek:

To a certain extent, you're correct when it comes to the Germans versus us.

C-Mac
06-21-2005, 03:29 PM
What if he was leading an entire army of mini-Ditkas?

"No doubt we would all be eating sour krout, drinkin' warm beer and eaten brats"

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:29 PM
More importantly, what if the Axis powers agreed not to have the Japanese attack PH? The Soviet Union gone, US wouldn't enter the war, Germany leaves England alone (never really wanted to attack her anyway) It would have ended, and we wouldn't have done a thing about it.

*EDIT: Great. Now I'm doing it.

This may have worked, but ultimately, it's hard to imagine Japan and the US not going to war. Their interests were directly inimical.

I'm not sure how you arrive at "the Soviet Union gone". That's uncertain even if they take Moscow.

Cochise
06-21-2005, 03:32 PM
Ha ha, the Ukraine. Do you know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine.

I SHOW YOU WEAK!!

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:33 PM
Not being a smart ass, but you need to read up on the battle of Britain, as the Germans were within days of defeating them, had they not switched to bombing English cities. The RAF was in it's death troes, this according to the RAF and all the history written about it.

With this position, Churchill very likely would have been thrown out, paving the way for a separate peace with England and Germany ( Vichy France ) if not an out right invasion.

Either scenario would have left German in the position to devote it's full military might against the USSR, and assuming Hitler let the Generals fight the war, the Soviets were toast.

Have no worries, I have read plenty. I can even tell you why they switched from the RAF to cities. A mistake by the Luftwaffe in bombing a British city (I want to say Manchester, but I'm uncertain), leads Churchill to order a retaliation bombing in a Germany city (no idea which) which then leads to Hitler ordering all-out bombing of cities.

In any event, however, I'm uncertain that Germany, even if they had won the Battle of Britain, could have converted that temporary air supreriority into either destruction of the shipping into England, invasion of England or any other strategic victory. Possible, but uncertain.

Keep in mind -- Germany has no heavy bombers, and as soon as the Luftwaffe changes to some other target, the RAF gets rebuilt.

I havent' seen anything where England was "a week or two away from surrendering". Look at Germany in '44. Carpet bombing by heavy bombers (far more than Germany could have done to england in '40-'41) and yet their armaments production was still higher than in '41 and still relatively stable, and their armies were continuing to fight relatively effectively on two fronts.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:34 PM
Almost got my doctorate. But, my occupation has nothing to do with history.

Ah. History professor seems like a job I'd love to have.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:35 PM
I don't think that Amnorix was saying any different.

As a little historical aside, did you know that the Germans first dropped bombs on London by accident? A HE111 crew got lost and ended up (unbeknownst to them them) over London. They figured it was time to head back east and unloaded their bombs. Of course, this led to a retaliatory attack on Germany by Bomber Command, which led to Hitler getting his panties in a bunch and switching the primary targets from the RAF bases to the cities.

History's funny that way. One lone crew turned the course of human history, maybe.


Gah! Beat me to it.

Didn't think it was London, but mebbe.

And yes, it was unbelievably important

Donger
06-21-2005, 03:36 PM
This may have worked, but ultimately, it's hard to imagine Japan and the US not going to war. Their interests were directly inimical.

I'm not sure how you arrive at "the Soviet Union gone". That's uncertain even if they take Moscow.

Like I said, I don't like these discussions, because these events DID happen. But....

I really don't think that FDR would have taken us to war without a direct and massive attack on US territory. Yes, we were heading to war before PH, but I think that if Japan had taken the DEI and stopped there without attacking us (or the Philippines), we would not have declared war.

So, Japan's out.

England's no longer a threat.

Germany is fighting a single front war against the Soviet Union. If Hitler had started Barbarossa a few months earlier, he may have been able to take Moscow in 1941 EVEN WITH the Brits still fighting. Yes, the Soviets had begun moving the industrial capacity to the east of the Urals, but I think that without the drain of the second front (via air), the Germans could have done it.

Skip Towne
06-21-2005, 03:36 PM
Actually it all boils down to "If the dog hadn't stopped to shit he'd have caught the rabbit".

go bowe
06-21-2005, 03:37 PM
This may have worked, but ultimately, it's hard to imagine Japan and the US not going to war. Their interests were directly inimical.

I'm not sure how you arrive at "the Soviet Union gone". That's uncertain even if they take Moscow.because even if they take moscow and all the cities in western russia, the government is not in those places...

at that time, stalin was the government...

and as long as the russians had the enormous advantage of apparently ceaseless reinforcements from the east, stalin would remain in charge and russian troops would never quit fighting to defend their homeland...

imo, germany could never have conquered russia (assuming that the u.s. provided at least as much aid as it did)...

beavis
06-21-2005, 03:38 PM
"No doubt we would all be eating sour krout, drinkin' warm beer and eaten brats"
What if the Germans were led by Adolf Ditka?

Donger
06-21-2005, 03:39 PM
Ah. History professor seems like a job I'd love to have.

Too many students that were only taking History 101 because they had to. That and I was unbelievably burned out on history at that point.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:39 PM
That is simply not true by any stretch of the imagination.

We simply out produced them by shear numbers. As an example our best aircraft and armor were junk compared to their best. :eek:

Armor -- no doubt about it, theirs was generally better than ours. When you have a 5:1 advantage on the battelfield, howevver...

Technology -- we (including the English) had Radar, had broken their Enigma code, had aircraft carriers, LSTs (don't undervalue these), and heavy bombers. Oh yeah, and ATOMIC BOMBS.

I'd put our latter-stage aircraft up against their fighters anytime, except for the jets. :)

Their 88 Flak guns were absurdly excellent. Armor, of course, although Hitler couldn't control himself. The Tigers were too damn heavy and the Panthers were supposed to be a light tank that he turned into a heavy. This, in turn, cost so much more in materials/time to buld that it hurt production, which led to us and the Russians having more tanks on the battlefield.

beavis
06-21-2005, 03:40 PM
I bet somehow this is Bush's fault.

Brock
06-21-2005, 03:42 PM
Like I said, I don't like these discussions, because these events DID happen. But....

I really don't think that FDR would have taken us to war without a direct and massive attack on US territory. Yes, we were heading to war before PH, but I think that if Japan had taken the DEI and stopped there without attacking us (or the Philippines), we would not have declared war.


We'd ultimately have been better off if we had let Japan do what it wanted, instead of stupidly insisting on embargoing them for basically no reason. No Korean war for us, no Vietnam, Russia is buffered, and China is a dead issue.

Donger
06-21-2005, 03:43 PM
Gah! Beat me to it.

Didn't think it was London, but mebbe.

And yes, it was unbelievably important

Don't doubt Donger on this subject.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:43 PM
I bet somehow this is Bush's fault.

You're probably right.

JOhn
06-21-2005, 03:43 PM
Armor -- no doubt about it, theirs was generally better than ours. When you have a 5:1 advantage on the battelfield, howevver...

Technology -- we (including the English) had Radar, had broken their Enigma code, had aircraft carriers, LSTs (don't undervalue these), and heavy bombers. Oh yeah, and ATOMIC BOMBS.

I'd put our latter-stage aircraft up against their fighters anytime, except for the jets. :)

Their 88 Flak guns were absurdly excellent. Armor, of course, although Hitler couldn't control himself. The Tigers were too damn heavy and the Panthers were supposed to be a light tank that he turned into a heavy. This, in turn, cost so much more in materials/time to buld that it hurt production, which led to us and the Russians having more tanks on the battlefield.

The Germans were not far from getting radar, and you HAVE to include their jets. If Hitler had not mettled with them, they would have been in service by 43 at the latest.

What really hurt the Germans more than anything, was Hitler refusal to put the economy on a war footing until late 44.

beavis
06-21-2005, 03:45 PM
You're probably right.
The liberal media is making it out like that anyway.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:46 PM
Don't doubt Donger on this subject.

No argument. I don't recall off the top of my head anyway.

I cannot imagine being "burnt out" on history. I read it like a freaking cocaine addict.

ROYC75
06-21-2005, 03:48 PM
I don't think that Amnorix was saying any different.

As a little historical aside, did you know that the Germans first dropped bombs on London by accident? A HE111 crew got lost and ended up (unbeknownst to them them) over London. They figured it was time to head back east and unloaded their bombs. Of course, this led to a retaliatory attack on Germany by Bomber Command, which led to Hitler getting his panties in a bunch and switching the primary targets from the RAF bases to the cities.

History's funny that way. One lone crew turned the course of human history, maybe.


I knew Col. Klink had something to do with it. :)

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:49 PM
The Germans were not far from getting radar, and you HAVE to include their jets. If Hitler had not mettled with them, they would have been in service by 43 at the latest.

What really hurt the Germans more than anything, was Hitler refusal to put the economy on a war footing until late 44.

He put them on a war footing before late '44. But yes, the delay in switching to true wartime production did hurt.

I don't believe Jets would've/could've been in service to any great extent before '44, but that's quibbling to a degree.

And, P.S. -- Atomic bombs. :) They weren't even researching them... I'll take atomics over jets.

Basically, when you're talking about '43, nothing matters -- it's too late for the Third Reich. You've got to take all the right steps in '40 and '41 or else they're doomed. I posit that they were doomed anyway.

Donger
06-21-2005, 03:50 PM
No argument. I don't recall off the top of my head anyway.

I cannot imagine being "burnt out" on history. I read it like a freaking cocaine addict.

I was reading ten+ history books a week at one point, on top of everything else. I'd always been a history geek, but I just reached a critical mass. I was also tired of being in school and not making any money.

JOhn
06-21-2005, 03:52 PM
No argument. I don't recall off the top of my head anyway.

I cannot imagine being "burnt out" on history. I read it like a freaking cocaine addict.
You and I both. :drool:

Donger
06-21-2005, 03:53 PM
He put them on a war footing before late '44. But yes, the delay in switching to true wartime production did hurt.

I don't believe Jets would've/could've been in service to any great extent before '44, but that's quibbling to a degree.

And, P.S. -- Atomic bombs. :) They weren't even researching them... I'll take atomics over jets.

Basically, when you're talking about '43, nothing matters -- it's too late for the Third Reich. You've got to take all the right steps in '40 and '41 or else they're doomed. I posit that they were doomed anyway.

Regarding the A-bomb, let's not forget that it was built with the intention of it being used against Germany primarily, not Japan. In fact, the MP scientists all freaked out when it was learned that the Germans had abandoned their program, but that General Graves still intended to use it against the Japanese.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:54 PM
I was reading ten+ history books a week at one point, on top of everything else.

err....1.4 books per day, minimum? Unless you're a qualified speedreader with nothing else to do with your time, I have to say I find this very hard to believe. Sure you're not exaggerating just a wee bit??

I'd always been a history geek, but I just reached a critical mass. I was also tired of being in school and not making any money.

THIS part I can definitely understand.

Jenson71
06-21-2005, 03:55 PM
You and I both. :drool:

Whatever JOhn. You can't read, you just look at the freakin pictures.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 03:56 PM
Regarding the A-bomb, let's not forget that it was built with the intention of it being used against Germany primarily, not Japan. In fact, the MP scientists all freaked out when it was learned that the Germans had abandoned their program, but that General Graves still intended to use it against the Japanese.

Good point, that. Although a few scientists were in favor of using it still.

Donger
06-21-2005, 03:57 PM
err....1.4 books per day, minimum? Unless you're a qualified speedreader with nothing else to do with your time, I have to say I find this very hard to believe. Sure you're not exaggerating just a wee bit??



THIS part I can definitely understand.

No, I'm not kidding. One semester I took 21 hours of 900 level history classes. It sucked. Of course, I was very much skimming some of the tomes, and not the others, which I knew was stupid to do, which contributed to the burnout.

JOhn
06-21-2005, 03:57 PM
He put them on a war footing before late '44. But yes, the delay in switching to true wartime production did hurt.

I don't believe Jets would've/could've been in service to any great extent before '44, but that's quibbling to a degree.

And, P.S. -- Atomic bombs. :) They weren't even researching them... I'll take atomics over jets.

Basically, when you're talking about '43, nothing matters -- it's too late for the Third Reich. You've got to take all the right steps in '40 and '41 or else they're doomed. I posit that they were doomed anyway.
I'm almost positive they did not switch to full war production until 44, I do know that rationing was not started till then. :hmmm:

I know the jets were later, but I was just pointing out there overall superiority in technology.

And they were working on atomic bombs, but unfortunately there were 4-5 different groups working on it separately, with no coordination.

Oh, they did have heavy bombers, though only a few were built, because Hitler figured the war would be over before they were needed. If I remember correctly they were based on the Condor. Incidentally the Condor was there basis for a intercontinental bomber to reach New York, albeit one-way mission.

JOhn
06-21-2005, 03:58 PM
Whatever JOhn. You can't read, you just look at the freakin pictures.
4321
'
No, I can't write, reading I do fine at. :harumph:

Donger
06-21-2005, 03:58 PM
Good point, that. Although a few scientists were in favor of using it still.

I forget how many ended up signing the petition not to use it against Japan, but if memory serves, it was the vast majority. I know that Teller wasn't one of them.

Heh.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 04:00 PM
I forget how many ended up signing the petition not to use it against Japan, but if memory serves, it was the vast majority. I know that Teller wasn't one of them.

Heh.

I must say, your restraint in avoiding this thread is, err, inobvious...

:LOL: :fire: :evil:

Donger
06-21-2005, 04:01 PM
I must say, your restraint in avoiding this thread is, err, inobvious...

:LOL: :fire: :evil:

"They keep sucking me back in!"

:)

JOhn
06-21-2005, 04:02 PM
"They keep sucking me back in!"

:)
ROFL

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 04:04 PM
I'm almost positive they did not switch to full war production until 44, I do know that rationing was not started till then. :hmmm:

I know the jets were later, but I was just pointing out there overall superiority in technology.

And they were working on atomic bombs, but unfortunately there were 4-5 different groups working on it separately, with no coordination.

Oh, they did have heavy bombers, though only a few were built, because Hitler figured the war would be over before they were needed. If I remember correctly they were based on the Condor. Incidentally the Condor was there basis for a intercontinental bomber to reach New York, albeit one-way mission.

They were superior in some technology areas, not all.

Cipher is incredibly important, and they stupidly had their most important ciphers broken and never changed them, fundamentally. And they failed to crack the top ciphers of their opponents.

They never had any heavy bombers worth talking about. They simply didn't bother with them to any degree worth discussing.

Their basic fighters in the second half of the war weren't better than the top US fighters.

They did develop jets, but were too stupid to mass produce them, and too stupid to dedicate them to fighters instead of bombers (this one is on Hitler directly).

They gave up on atomic weapons in the very early 40s as either unattainable, or unattainable before the war was decided. Either way, they were NOT actively pursuing atomic energy for most of the war.

JOhn
06-21-2005, 04:08 PM
They were superior in some technology areas, not all.

Cipher is incredibly important, and they stupidly had their most important ciphers broken and never changed them, fundamentally. And they failed to crack the top ciphers of their opponents.

They never had any heavy bombers worth talking about. They simply didn't bother with them to any degree worth discussing.

Their basic fighters in the second half of the war weren't better than the top US fighters.

They did develop jets, but were too stupid to mass produce them, and too stupid to dedicate them to fighters instead of bombers (this one is on Hitler directly).

They gave up on atomic weapons in the very early 40s as either unattainable, or unattainable before the war was decided. Either way, they were NOT actively pursuing atomic energy for most of the war.


All but your first point are a direct result of Hitlers reasoning. Had he not interfered it would have been vastly different case.

Remember I was simply pointing out there best technology, for the most part, was superior to ours, contradicting your earlier statement.

Also don't forget they had ballistic weapons ( V-2 ) and guided missiles, both of which we had no clue about, and had nothing comparable.

Skip Towne
06-21-2005, 04:09 PM
He put them on a war footing before late '44. But yes, the delay in switching to true wartime production did hurt.

I don't believe Jets would've/could've been in service to any great extent before '44, but that's quibbling to a degree.

And, P.S. -- Atomic bombs. :) They weren't even researching them... I'll take atomics over jets.

Basically, when you're talking about '43, nothing matters -- it's too late for the Third Reich. You've got to take all the right steps in '40 and '41 or else they're doomed. I posit that they were doomed anyway.
Germany's jets would go like hell but they burned an unbelievable amount of fuel and they couldn't stay in the air for more than a few minutes. When our fighters saw one take off they would orbit above the airfield and wait for it to come back. Out of fuel and deadstick. Then we shot them down. Germany also ran out of pilots before D-Day as they didn't have a rotation system that constantly trained new pilots like we did.

Hercules Rockefell
06-21-2005, 04:12 PM
5 pages and not one mention of Dunkirk? Hitler doesn't listen to Goering, and the Weirmacht pushes the entire BEF and the remaining Free French into the sea. With no army to defend the British Isles, Churchill has to capitulate.

Northern Africa should be mentioned too. No one recognized the strategic importance of what Rommel could have done. If he had more troops to finish off Monty, the Afrika Corps walks into the ME and takes control of a majority of the world's oil supplies. You also threaten the Soviet Union from antoher direction.

JOhn
06-21-2005, 04:14 PM
Germany's jets would go like hell but they burned an unbelievable amount of fuel and they couldn't stay in the air for more than a few minutes. When our fighters saw one take off they would orbit above the airfield and wait for it to come back. Out of fuel and deadstick. Then we shot them down. Germany also ran out of pilots before D-Day as they didn't have a rotation system that constantly trained new pilots like we did.
Skip your thinking of their ROCKET fighters, the ME-163 Komet.

Their main jet fighter, the ME-262 was a very potent and capable weapon, and had no issues of running out of fuel, as it was a fighter in all senses.

StcChief
06-21-2005, 04:18 PM
and if we let Patton roll and bombed USSR we wouldn't have had a cold war.

Roosevelt is a communist at heart for not allowing the US to stop the next threat.

think of all the money wasted between US / USSR over nukes for 40 years.

Donger
06-21-2005, 04:18 PM
Germany's jets would go like hell but they burned an unbelievable amount of fuel and they couldn't stay in the air for more than a few minutes. When our fighters saw one take off they would orbit above the airfield and wait for it to come back. Out of fuel and deadstick. Then we shot them down. Germany also ran out of pilots before D-Day as they didn't have a rotation system that constantly trained new pilots like we did.

The ME-262 could stay up for longet than a few minutes, but compared to our fighter, yes, its combat radius was relatively small. Maybe you're thinking of the ME163 rocket plane? The fastest plane of WWII but it ran out of fuel very quickly (within a few minutes) and had to glide back to base. I love the film of that little sucker taking off; it had a droppable undercarriage to save weight. It would take off, drop the wheel dolly and then go ballistic; I remember that the climb angle was something near 70 degrees of vertical. Must have been fun for the pilots of the day.

And you're sure right about the Swallow's vulnerabilty at landing. In fact, Chuck Yeager himself nailed a Swallow on approach.

Donger
06-21-2005, 04:20 PM
5 pages and not one mention of Dunkirk? Hitler doesn't listen to Goering, and the Weirmacht pushes the entire BEF and the remaining Free French into the sea. With no army to defend the British Isles, Churchill has to capitulate.

Northern Africa should be mentioned too. No one recognized the strategic importance of what Rommel could have done. If he had more troops to finish off Monty, the Afrika Corps walks into the ME and takes control of a majority of the world's oil supplies. You also threaten the Soviet Union from antoher direction.

The Battle of Britain was an air battle, almost exclusively. While Dunkirk was certainly important (and a strategic blunder, but then Hitler never really considered England his enemy), the BEF had very little to do with the logistics of the BoB.

Donger
06-21-2005, 04:22 PM
Skip your thinking of their ROCKET fighters, the ME-163 Komet.

Their main jet fighter, the ME-262 was a very potent and capable weapon, and had no issues of running out of fuel, as it was a fighter in all senses.

Heh. Beat me to it.

JOhn
06-21-2005, 04:23 PM
Heh. Beat me to it.
:D

ROYC75
06-21-2005, 04:28 PM
Again, how could they, they had Col. Wilhelm Klink,Sgt. Hans Georg Schultz and the whole Stalag 13. How could they win, we had them covered from underground with Hogans Heros .

IMHO, seriously, I don't think Germany could have won it, they didn't have the capability to attack us here in the states .

JOhn
06-21-2005, 04:31 PM
IMHO, seriously, I don't think Germany could have won it, they didn't have the capability to attack us here in the states .

YOur assuming that conquering the US was a goal of Hitlers, which it wasn't.

Donger
06-21-2005, 04:32 PM
IMHO, seriously, I don't think Germany could have won it, they didn't have the capability to attack us here in the states .

True. But, don't forget that we only went to war with Germany AFTER Pearl Harbor. If Pearl Harbor hadn't happened, would we have ever declared war on Germany?

I doubt it. Not without some direct attack on us or our interests.

After PH, it became academic due to the Tripartite Pact (Axis Powers).

Marco Polo
06-21-2005, 04:36 PM
Didn't Germany try to persuade Mexico to go to war with us and offer support with that?

Hercules Rockefell
06-21-2005, 04:36 PM
The Battle of Britain was an air battle, almost exclusively. While Dunkirk was certainly important (and a strategic blunder, but then Hitler never really considered England his enemy), the BEF had very little to do with the logistics of the BoB.

A strategic "blunder" is all? By trying to bomb the BEF instead of running them into the sea, IIRC, about 400k troops made it back to England instead of German POW camps. That's not just a blunder, and yes that would have had an effect on the BoB. You can't defend the British Isles with just planes. Operation Sealion would have been launched as soon as the Germans were ready since there would have been no army to defend the Isles. The entire reason for the BoB was to destroy the RAF so they could not attack German transports during the invasion. The RAF would have destroyed some of the German transports, but with no virtually army to fight any troops that landed, they would simply be delaying the inevitable. So either Churchill would have sued for peace because there was almost no army left to defend England, or the Germans would have invaded. Not destorying the BEF when he had the chance was a massive, massive error by Hitler.

and, yes, I know that Hitler never really considered Britain an enemy and was pretty depressed, for a lack of a better term, when the British declared war after Germany's invasion of Poland. He wanted an Anglo-Saxon alliance with them that involved the US also.

Wilson
06-21-2005, 04:41 PM
Just want to take a moment and thank Amorex for being an attention whore and instead of discussing this on my thread, creating a new one and pretty much ruining my few threads I've ever started.



http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/image-1930.jpg

Donger
06-21-2005, 04:41 PM
A strategic "blunder" is all? By trying to bomb the BEF instead of running them into the sea, IIRC, about 400k troops made it back to England instead of German POW camps. That's not just a blunder, and yes that would have had an effect on the BoB. You can't defend the British Isles with just planes. Operation Sealion would have been launched as soon as the Germans were ready since there would have been no army to defend the Isles. The entire reason for the BoB was to destroy the RAF so they could not attack German transports during the invasion. The RAF would have destroyed some of the German transports, but with no virtually army to fight any troops that landed, they would simply be delaying the inevitable. So either Churchill would have sued for peace because there was almost no army left to defend England, or the Germans would have invaded. Not destorying the BEF when he had the chance was a massive, massive error by Hitler.

and, yes, I know that Hitler never really considered Britain an enemy and was pretty depressed, for a lack of a better term, when the British declared war after Germany's invasion of Poland. He wanted an Anglo-Saxon alliance with them that involved the US also.

Yes, it was a startegic blunder. And no, the BEF ground forces did not have a significant role in the BoB.

As to even being able to LAUNCH Sea Lion, last time I checked, the Germans didn't have the requisite number of LSTs to start an invasion even with air superiority, which they never gained.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Hitler's decision at Dunkirk didn't ramifications later on. It did. But it did not have much relevance with regards to the RAF and the BoB.

PastorMikH
06-21-2005, 04:57 PM
Havent read all the replies, probably won't. However, it is pretty hard to guess for sure either way. IF Germany had someone other than Hitler in charge they might not have even bothered trying.

One thing that leads towards them not being able to win would be that once they defeated countries, they would have had to left troops in those countries to keep the allegiance to Germany. This would have spread out their forces and they would probably have ran out of troops to continue waging new campaigns.

One thing that leads towards them being able to do so is that they were really, really close to beating us in the development of the A-Bomb. Had they perfected it sooner, the world would have been toast.


I'm just glad it turned out the way it did.

JOhn
06-21-2005, 05:12 PM
FWIW I have a great book on alternative history called Third Reich Victorious Edited by Peter Tsouras.

It's a really great read, covering Dunkirk, BoB, the North African campaign and several other possibilities.

Cochise
06-21-2005, 05:18 PM
So what is the prevailing thought? Did Hitler actually believe he could win? What was his purpose?

Cochise
06-21-2005, 05:19 PM
Didn't Germany try to persuade Mexico to go to war with us and offer support with that?

The Zimmerman Telegram is what you are thinking of. In exchange for some assistance they were going to offer them return of territory in the southwestern US I believe.

Coach
06-21-2005, 05:23 PM
I think here are a few things on what I think.

- Germany's navy. As a result, when the war started in 1939, the German navy had 3 mighty battleships, 8 heavy cruisers, and more in construction, and only 12 submarines capable of Atlantic operations (there were also 43 smaller submarines for coastal and training duties). It was a tiny fraction of the 300 Atlantic submarines Doenitz asked for (in order to always have 100 in position). It's important to state that with the resources and manpower needed to build and operate a single battleship, about 50 Atlantic submarines could be built and operated, so if Roeder or Hitler had supported Doenitz before the war, and for example built 150 more submarines by 1940 instead of the 3 almost useless battleships, Britain could have been decisively defeated at sea by 1941, before the US and Russia were at war.

- War effort. While the Allies performed a successful total effort to increase and optimize military production, in Germany there was no such effort until 1944, when it was too late. Allied factories produced 24 hours/day, and millions of women became production workers. In Nazi-Germany, starved prisoners were used instead, and most of German women remained at home.

Those are a few that I can name of.

siberian khatru
06-21-2005, 05:30 PM
Didn't Germany try to persuade Mexico to go to war with us and offer support with that?

Different war.

KC Dan
06-21-2005, 05:32 PM
Different war.
Nope, right war.

http://www.pittstate.edu/services/scied/Staff/Shoberg/History/wwi/zimmer.htm

siberian khatru
06-21-2005, 05:32 PM
Nope, right war.

http://www.pittstate.edu/services/scied/Staff/Shoberg/History/wwi/zimmer.htm

Maybe I didn't scroll back far enough. Isn't this thread about WWII?

KC Dan
06-21-2005, 05:33 PM
Nope, right war.

http://www.pittstate.edu/services/scied/Staff/Shoberg/History/wwi/zimmer.htm
Crap, 1916...You are correct! Accept my stupidity.....:banghead:

siberian khatru
06-21-2005, 05:36 PM
Crap, 1916...You are correct! Accept my stupidity.....:banghead:

Eh, happens to the best of us.

Donger
06-21-2005, 05:37 PM
Crap, 1916...You are correct! Accept my stupidity.....:banghead:

Peh. 1916. !939.

"Whatever it takes."

Zebedee DuBois
06-21-2005, 05:50 PM
You guys are all failing to factor in the fact that if the martians had invaded on their original timetable, the outcome of our minor skirmish would have been completely different. Darn those Plutonian supply ships.

Bug
06-21-2005, 05:56 PM
Dunkirk was a massive blunder by Nazi Command. The Nazi army had an opportunity to capture the BEF or destroy it, and failed to do so. Some historians beleive that the blitzkrieg stopped short of Dunkirk due to fuel and munitions shortages, others think perhaps Hilter was hoping that the BEF would surrender rather than fight a hopless battle, still others are convinced that the Luftwaffe was to bomb and strafe the BEF into surrender. (Bear in mind Hiltler was a conscripted soldier in WW I, not an officer, and therefore thought and behaved as a conscripted soldier,whowere terrified of allied bombers and fighters.)
The vast majority of the Nazi officers wanted to push the battle unto the end, but for what ever reason could not. This one single battle lost the war for Nazi Germany.
The BEF escape to Great Britian allowed the Brithish to keep an army, train a larger army (using the experienced NCO's and Officers that had seen battle in France) and hold the British Isles against invasion. All true.
It also forced Nazi Germany to allocate resorces to a western front that should not have existed. With no threat from Britian (captured or nuetralized) the Soviet Union would have been alone and faced the full capability of the Nazi combined arms, at best a prolonged and desperate battle, at very best. (The Soviet Union was NOT at war with Nazi Germany at the time of Dunkirk or the Battle of Britian)
Even with the BEF escape, Hitler was WINNING the Battle of Britian through simple attrition until he ordered the bombing of cities instead of aircraft factories, docks, and airfields. At one point in the Battle of Britian, the Royal Air Force was down to 14 days of sustained combat operations due to pilot and aircraft losses. Just 2 more weeks of the brutal combat targeting the military installations instead of cities and the Royal Air Force would have collapsed. Hitler apparently did not have the stomach for it. Luftwaffe losses would have been much higher, but the Roayl Airforce would not have and could not have recovered.
Nazi Germany had a number of chances to force the British to surrender or out right defeat the Brits. Luck was on the Allied side until the United States entered the war, after that point Hitler was doomed. Industrial capacity alone would win the war for the allies, as US factories were out of harms way the German factories were not.

Donger
06-21-2005, 06:00 PM
Hitler apparently did not have the stomach for it.

Are you suggesting that Hitler intentionally allowed the British to win the Battle of Britain?

Inspector
06-21-2005, 06:01 PM
The biggest mistake Germany made was bombing Pearl Harbor.


Dude, you need to learn your history better.

Germany did not bomb Pearl Harbor.

North Viet Nam did.

Duh..

Inspector
06-21-2005, 06:03 PM
It's fugging late June. Draft is over. TC is many weeks away.

You got something more relevant/exciting to talk about? Feel free. But we're in the dregs of summer. I mean, I could start another "look at these nice tits" thread, but...

Wha....?

Someone say something about tits?

Bug
06-21-2005, 06:06 PM
Are you suggesting that Hitler intentionally allowed the British to win the Battle of Britain?
Not at all, Hitler didn't have the conviction or courage to maintain the fight, he gave into the easier way every time. It was far less costly and killed more people bombing cities, than bombing airfields, factories and docks.

Donger
06-21-2005, 06:13 PM
Not at all, Hitler didn't have the conviction or courage to maintain the fight, he gave into the easier way every time. It was far less costly and killed more people bombing cities, than bombing airfields, factories and docks.

Just asking.

Bug
06-21-2005, 06:22 PM
NP :)

Hoover
06-21-2005, 06:27 PM
It's fugging late June. Draft is over. TC is many weeks away.

You got something more relevant/exciting to talk about? Feel free. But we're in the dregs of summer. I mean, I could start another "look at these nice tits" thread, but...
Dude there was already a thread on this, I just don't see the need to start your own.

Mods, can we dele3te this so I can answer this thread with my own thread....

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 07:48 PM
Also don't forget they had ballistic weapons ( V-2 ) and guided missiles, both of which we had no clue about, and had nothing comparable.

Yes, and a huge cannon that was so damn big it could only be moved around on rails. But INEFFECTIVE weapons of war don't interest me.

The rockets would've been more handy if they had a few more years to refine the whole concept. As it was, the V-1 and V-2 were fairly useless in inflicting military damage.

Their only value (not completely inconsiderable) was in distracting the allies and forcing them to hunt them down and kill them to stop their use as instruments of terror against civilian populations.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 07:55 PM
5 pages and not one mention of Dunkirk? Hitler doesn't listen to Goering, and the Weirmacht pushes the entire BEF and the remaining Free French into the sea. With no army to defend the British Isles, Churchill has to capitulate.

This part is definitely a worthwhile statement. There's a question of whether the destruction of the BEF means England loses the war outright. The problem with invading England was less about England's land armies than it was about her Navy and Air Force. But it's certainly worthwhile to mention/discuss it.

Northern Africa should be mentioned too. No one recognized the strategic importance of what Rommel could have done. If he had more troops to finish off Monty, the Afrika Corps walks into the ME and takes control of a majority of the world's oil supplies. You also threaten the Soviet Union from antoher direction.

Much less worthwhile. The German high command DID recognize teh strategic importance of North Africa. He didn't have more troops because of that little invasion of the Soviet Union thing. It's also nearly impossible to imagine an effective German invasion from either Turkey or Iran. The logistics/supply lines, etc. are so strung out as to be unworkable.

IMHO the mistake was in not using airborne troops to take Malta, from which the British were harrassing German supplies into North Africa. After Crete, however, the German high command was leery of losing so many highly trained troops on such assaults.

What could have been effective was a bit more of a commitment into Iraq. It's debateable whether Germany with a small number of airborne assault squadrons could have taken over what was a lightly defended area of the British Empire, taking away the oil resources, etc. That's much more interesting to speculate on than whether any kind of useful threat could really have been mounted by Germany from the USSR's southern flank. That's pretty wildly speculative.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 08:01 PM
and if we let Patton roll and bombed USSR we wouldn't have had a cold war.

Roosevelt is a communist at heart for not allowing the US to stop the next threat.

think of all the money wasted between US / USSR over nukes for 40 years.

Congratulations. You have the worst post of this entire thread. Thanks for playing.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 08:04 PM
Just want to take a moment and thank Amorex for being an attention whore and instead of discussing this on my thread, creating a new one and pretty much ruining my few threads I've ever started.

:spock:

Get a grip noob.

Fairplay
06-21-2005, 08:09 PM
Of course they didn't win the war. And we could look back and say, "Well if Germany hadn't attacked the Soviet Union then....."

The fact is they did. They fu*ked up in several ways. The Germans were a war machine to reckon with thats for sure. But unless there was a time machine where they could say..... 'Sh*t! I suppose we should have made our scientists build an atomic bomb first.' But it didn't happen.

Hindsight is 20/20. Jeez, everyone thought Sadaam had weapons of mass distruction as well. (not to change the subject) Whoops! I guess he didn't. Can we change that war? Nope.
Fact is you do what you think is the right thing at the time. The woulda-shoulda-could'aves come later.

The third Riech is history, Kaput.

Maybe next time, eh Germany?

BTW, i like reading about history. Non-fiction is better then fiction always. But history is well.......history, and no one can change it.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 08:10 PM
Dude there was already a thread on this, I just don't see the need to start your own.

Mods, can we dele3te this so I can answer this thread with my own thread....

No, that thread was "would you shoot Hitler if...?"

This thread is "could Germany have won WWII?".

Now kindly STFU.

Otter
06-21-2005, 08:11 PM
:spock:

Get a grip noob.

He's been a member longer than you.

PastorMikH
06-21-2005, 08:11 PM
Just want to take a moment and thank Amorex for being an attention whore and instead of discussing this on my thread, creating a new one and pretty much ruining my few threads I've ever started.



Oh, sorry about that. I have my Planet Filter set so that those that have less than 1000 posts don't show up. I wouldn't have seen your post if Amnorix wouldn't have quoted it. You should thank him for that.





:)

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 08:21 PM
One thing that leads towards them being able to do so is that they were really, really close to beating us in the development of the A-Bomb. Had they perfected it sooner, the world would have been toast.

No they weren't, although it's a common misperception otherwise.

I just looked it up in one resource:

"On the suggestion of the nuclear physicists we scuttled the project to develop an atom bomb by the autumn of 1942, after I had again queried about deadlines and been told that we could not count on anything for three or four years. The war would certainly have been decided long before then. Instead I authorized the development of an energy-producing uranium motor for propelling machinery. The navy was interest in that for its submarines.

In the course of a visit to teh Krupp works I asked to be shown parts of our first cyclotron and asked the technician in charge whether we could go on and build a considerably larger apparatus. But he confirmed what Professor Heisenberg had previousy said: we lacked the technical experience. . . .

In the summer of 1943, wolframite imports from Portugal were cut off, which created a critical situation fo rthe production of solid core ammunition. I therefore ordered the use of uranium cores for this type of ammunition. My release of our uranium stocks of about twelve hundred metric tons showed that we no longer had any thought of producing atomic bombs."

Inside the Third Reich, Memoirs by Albert Speer, Reich Minister of Armaments and Munitions (1942-45), c. 1970, pp. 227-228.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 08:22 PM
He's been a member longer than you.

...and yet is so much less self-confident. :)

Zebedee DuBois
06-21-2005, 08:23 PM
Congratulations. You have the worst post of this entire thread. Thanks for playing.

Worse than my martians post????

What's a guy gotta do around here.....

Otter
06-21-2005, 08:23 PM
...and yet is so much less self-confident. :)


ROFL

I knew somthing like that was coming.

Fairplay
06-21-2005, 08:24 PM
War is the mother of inventions.

carlos3652
06-21-2005, 08:27 PM
Let me guess, you used to play a lot of Risk as a kid.


If you guys like risk, I have been playing this web game which is a turn based simulation just like risk:

FREE - http://www.globalcombat.com/index.php

Anyway great thread i love history... Ill keep reading...

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 08:44 PM
If you guys like risk, I have been playing this web game which is a turn based simulation just like risk:

FREE - http://www.globalcombat.com/index.php

Anyway great thread i love history... Ill keep reading...

I will definitely check it out.

I played a fair bit of Risk as a kid, but I still play various tabletop board games, many of which are based on history or quasi-historical in some fashion.

I am not, however, into Advanced Squad Leader, which is commonly understood to be the best WWII simulation game. I don't have that kind of free time.

carlos3652
06-21-2005, 09:04 PM
One thing that no one mentioned in these 9 pages (yea I read them all and found this very interesting) is that Hitler was also running mini -kill all jews campaign - In Polish, Soviet and German lands...

2 things to consider and i would like your opinions on this -

1. The amount of money and man power to run these camps... 6 mill Jews dead...

2. Im not sure that Hitlers primary objective was to rule Europe, his goal was to exterminate the Jewish Race, and the only way to do this is to go and conquer other lands to try to kill their Jews. I think he got greedy and made various mistakes along the way and lost his vision of genocide during this war. If he would have had it his way... there would be no Jews today.

my .02... I just cant believe it was not mentioned....

Skip Towne
06-21-2005, 09:13 PM
He's been a member longer than you.
Doesn't matter. 145 posts = n00b

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 09:18 PM
One thing that no one mentioned in these 9 pages (yea I read them all and found this very interesting) is that Hitler was also running mini -kill all jews campaign - In Polish, Soviet and German lands...

2 things to consider and i would like your opinions on this -

1. The amount of money and man power to run these camps... 6 mill Jews dead...

2. Im not sure that Hitlers primary objective was to rule Europe, his goal was to exterminate the Jewish Race, and the only way to do this is to go and conquer other lands to try to kill their Jews. I think he got greedy and made various mistakes along the way and lost his vision of genocide during this war. If he would have had it his way... there would be no Jews today.

my .02... I just cant believe it was not mentioned....

The campaign of extermination and other incredible atrocities committed by the Nazis does not have a tremenous impact on the purely military questions at issue in this thread.

Compared to the overall war effort, the death camps did not consume vast amounts of money, men or resources. Nor, as far as I have ever read, did Hitler make his various military decisions (rational and irrational) based on a desire to subjugate/exterminate specific races. He was primarily concerned with acquiring more land for the Germanic people, and THEN cleansing it of the "subhumans" and repopulating it with his Aryan peoples blah, blah, blah.

Skip Towne
06-21-2005, 09:19 PM
One thing that no one mentioned in these 9 pages (yea I read them all and found this very interesting) is that Hitler was also running mini -kill all jews campaign - In Polish, Soviet and German lands...

2 things to consider and i would like your opinions on this -

1. The amount of money and man power to run these camps... 6 mill Jews dead...

2. Im not sure that Hitlers primary objective was to rule Europe, his goal was to exterminate the Jewish Race, and the only way to do this is to go and conquer other lands to try to kill their Jews. I think he got greedy and made various mistakes along the way and lost his vision of genocide during this war. If he would have had it his way... there would be no Jews today.

my .02... I just cant believe it was not mentioned....
Hitler was an illigitimate child of a suspected Jewish father which drove his hatred of the Jews. He used his old home town in Austria as an artillery range trying to wipe out any vestige of his beginnings. He leveled libraries, churches and cemeteries and anything else that could reveal his roots.

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 09:47 PM
Hitler was an illigitimate child of a suspected Jewish father which drove his hatred of the Jews. He used his old home town in Austria as an artillery range trying to wipe out any vestige of his beginnings. He leveled libraries, churches and cemeteries and anything else that could reveal his roots.

I have seen nothing that validates this frequently circulated rumor. I just quickly pulled Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich off the shelf to see what he has to say about it.

"Adolf Hitler was the third son of the third marriage of a minor Austrian custom's official who had been born an illegitimte child and who, for the first thirty-nine years of his life, bore his mother's name -- Schicklgruber."

pg. 6.

Thus it was Hitler's father, not Hitler, who was illegitimate. The father's father eventually revealed himself, late in life, swearing before a notary that he was the father's father. The reasons for his late acceptance fo his fatherhood are not recorded. This occurred in 1876, prior to Hitler's birth in 1889.

chiefs4me
06-21-2005, 09:48 PM
This thread is great for finding out who the nerds are on the planet.......ROFL

Amnorix
06-21-2005, 09:53 PM
This thread is great for finding out who the nerds are on the planet.......ROFL

http://photos2.flickr.com/3222503_da90a153e9_m.jpg

Skip Towne
06-21-2005, 09:59 PM
This thread is great for finding out who the nerds are on the planet.......ROFL
So you know nothing about WWII? Why am I not surprised? You know nothing about anything.

Jenson71
06-21-2005, 10:01 PM
This thread is great for finding out who the nerds are on the planet.......ROFL

History buffs are considered nerds now?

Your posts are great for finding out how low the human race can get.

Skip Towne
06-21-2005, 10:05 PM
I have seen nothing that validates this frequently circulated rumor. I just quickly pulled Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich off the shelf to see what he has to say about it.

"Adolf Hitler was the third son of the third marriage of a minor Austrian custom's official who had been born an illegitimte child and who, for the first thirty-nine years of his life, bore his mother's name -- Schicklgruber."

pg. 6.

Thus it was Hitler's father, not Hitler, who was illegitimate. The father's father eventually revealed himself, late in life, swearing before a notary that he was the father's father. The reasons for his late acceptance fo his fatherhood are not recorded. This occurred in 1876, prior to Hitler's birth in 1889.
The reason I don't post much on these speculative threads is that if you read enough accounts, you can back up any position. What I have read over the past 50 years is that Hitler's mother's name was Shickelgruber. The purported father's name was Hitler. How does your account square with the name Hitler?

chiefs4me
06-21-2005, 10:12 PM
So you know nothing about WWII? Why am I not surprised? You know nothing about anything.



ROFL..who says I don't know anything about it? Besides, I have my own little history nerd, that I raised, sitting in his room, so if I wanna know anything else, I will just ask him.ROFL.......;)

Rausch
06-21-2005, 10:13 PM
Hitler was (cap'n obvious alert) a ****ing moron.

As mentioned, he horribly wasted German resources.

He either murdered or ran off some of the brightest minds in Germany and Western Europe (under Nazi occupation) and his paranoia lead to the death of Rommel and far superior jet fighters never really getting off the ground.

Hitler acted like a spoiled brat who'd been sent to bed without supper and woke up the next day wanting everything NOW! NOW! NOW!

If Germany had slowly moved across Europe (and taken advantage of the anti-Communist sentiment of nations like the Ukraine, for example) he could have had a huge advantage.

Had he not forced Rommel to fall on his sword he'd have had the best military mind in the world at his disposal.

Brittian alone did not have the technology or resources to fight off Germany, long term, by itself. Brittian's greatest strength was it's intelligence and refusal to quit.

German technology was 20 years or more past anything any of the other nations had at the time. All Germany needed was the resources to employ it and the soldiers to defend it.

Both of those were lost when Hitler got a hard-on for Russia. Few of his Jets ever got off the ground, his supply lines were cut, his oil supply lost, his super guns were never mass-produced, and the manpower was just not there to fight 3 major players (Brittian, America, Russia) at the same time.

I thank God a sane mind never had that type of power and advantage at his disposal...

JohnnyV13
06-22-2005, 12:32 AM
Could Hitler have won the war?

Interesting question, but to my mind I think he could have.

Others have mentioned many key turning points such as Dunkirk, BoB, misallocating naval resources away from U boat production, the decision to attack Russia before securing the western front, and breaking the Enigma code. But, there are a few points I would like to add.

Another major blunder by Hitler was placing a moratorium on all weapon development that could not be deployed in 6 months in 1942, because Hitler believed the war would be over before that time. This decision set back weapon development of many systems. In particular, the late war German aircraft were merely souped up versions of 1942 models.

Even German prop technology was superior to the allies late in WW2, Hitler just didn't mass produce them. One example is the Ta-152, a development from the Fw-190 that had a level flight speed of 540 mph, the fastest prop plane developed by anyone during ww2.

Very few of this type were ever deployed, in large part because of Hitler's 1942 moratorium on weapons development; instead Germany expended its effort on improving the tried and true Me-109 and Fw-190 variants, such as the Fw-190D.

The second point I would like to make is that while Germany did not have an active atomic bomb program, they DID have a large quantity of radioactive dust. In fact, just before the fall of Germany, they sent a submarie with this dust and a collection of their "wonder weapons" to Japan. This submarine was intercepted by an american warship and eventually brought to Norfork. The radioactive dust was intended to be used for a "dirty bomb" attack on the American west coast, delivered by seaplanes from 2 japanese submersible carriers.

While not as effective as atomic weapons, a dirty bomb attack would nonetheless be devastating. Had Hitler not made his blunders he might have been able to extend the war to the point where he would not have lost so much territory that his "dirty bomb" weapons were undeliverable against England and Russia for all practical purposes.

Rausch
06-22-2005, 12:34 AM
Could Hitler have won the war?

Hitler, no.

Germany (and allies), yes...

JohnnyV13
06-22-2005, 12:36 AM
BTW,

I think the "Jet delays" due to Hitler are overblown by most people. The biggest limiting factor in Jet production was the ceramic parts required for the engines. These parts did not become available in large numbers until 1944, and, if I recall correctly, Hitler's wonder weapons were excluded from his 42 moratorium so engine parts delay was not for that reason.

Amnorix
06-22-2005, 06:06 AM
The reason I don't post much on these speculative threads is that if you read enough accounts, you can back up any position. What I have read over the past 50 years is that Hitler's mother's name was Shickelgruber. The purported father's name was Hitler. How does your account square with the name Hitler?

According to Shirer, you're one generation off on this.

Hitler's father, Alois, was illegitimate, and was Alois Schicklgruber for his first 39 years of life (his mother's name).

His father finally came forward and swore an oath that Alois was his son. His father's name (various spellings were used) was Hitler.

Alois then became Alois Hitler, and then had his son Adolf.

chagrin
06-22-2005, 07:26 AM
" Who's with me....?"



ROFL

Donger
06-22-2005, 03:11 PM
This thread is great for finding out who the nerds are on the planet.......ROFL

Yes, I suppose so. If you consider those who care to learn about history to be "nerds."

Then again, we know from you sig that you are a NASCAR gangbang slut. Still looking for that fivesome, or have you already reached that level of bliss?

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 03:16 PM
I thank God a sane mind never had that type of power and advantage at his disposal...

All throughout history there are examples of those 2 things being mutually exclusive.

Soupnazi
06-22-2005, 03:25 PM
The campaign of extermination and other incredible atrocities committed by the Nazis does not have a tremenous impact on the purely military questions at issue in this thread.

Compared to the overall war effort, the death camps did not consume vast amounts of money, men or resources. Nor, as far as I have ever read, did Hitler make his various military decisions (rational and irrational) based on a desire to subjugate/exterminate specific races. He was primarily concerned with acquiring more land for the Germanic people, and THEN cleansing it of the "subhumans" and repopulating it with his Aryan peoples blah, blah, blah.

Once could certainly argue that without his policies of extermination of jews, those responsible for the majority of the research and development in the manhattan project would not have ended up on US shores.

Einstein and Fermi, just to name a couple.

Donger
06-22-2005, 03:26 PM
Once could certainly argue that without his policies of extermination of jews, those responsible for the majority of the research and development in the manhattan project would not have ended up on US shores.

Einstein and Fermi, just to name a couple.

Szilard. Crazy f*cker, but undoubtedly brilliant.

Amnorix
06-22-2005, 03:37 PM
Once could certainly argue that without his policies of extermination of jews, those responsible for the majority of the research and development in the manhattan project would not have ended up on US shores.

Einstein and Fermi, just to name a couple.

1. I agree that his anti-semitic policies drove many brilliant Jews out of Germany, to the detriment of the country.

2. IMHO you can't take part of what he used to weld the country together under him, militarize it, reinvigorate it, and prepare it for war,without taking all of it. In other words, if he hadn't been a hard-liner on many of the issues that he and Josef Goebbels used to capture a significant portion fo the Reichstag, and then to subjugate the country under him, then I'm not sure how he rises to power in he first place.

Soupnazi
06-22-2005, 03:46 PM
1. I agree that his anti-semitic policies drove many brilliant Jews out of Germany, to the detriment of the country.

2. IMHO you can't take part of what he used to weld the country together under him, militarize it, reinvigorate it, and prepare it for war,without taking all of it. In other words, if he hadn't been a hard-liner on many of the issues that he and Josef Goebbels used to capture a significant portion fo the Reichstag, and then to subjugate the country under him, then I'm not sure how he rises to power in he first place.

I guess it all depends on how you look at it. The idea of Hitler having the use of the atomic bomb is mind-numbing. After driving most of the most intelligent minds out of Germany, many scientists remaining had their doubts about whether or not to continue research on the bomb whole-heartedly. There's many conflicting pieces of information about Niehls Bohr purposely dragging his feet and sabotaging his own research for fear of Hitler using the weapon.

I think in a couple of fundamental ways though, you're right about the war's ultimate winnability for Germany. Namely in that it would have been impossible for Germany to be an occupying power in Russia and the US.

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 03:47 PM
In other words, if he hadn't been a hard-liner on many of the issues that he and Josef Goebbels used to capture a significant portion fo the Reichstag, and then to subjugate the country under him, then I'm not sure how he rises to power in he first place.

You are 100% correct. See my previous response. Machiavelli wasn't a total nutjob.

Donger
06-22-2005, 03:54 PM
You are 100% correct. See my previous response. Machiavelli wasn't a total nutjob.

I'm of the opinion that the anti-Jewish aspect of the NAZIs was not of paramount importance to their rise to power. Being ultra-pro-German was, however, not to mention being extremely anti-Versailles. It WA important, but not to the level that many raise it to, IMO.

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 03:58 PM
I'm of the opinion that the anti-Jewish aspect of the NAZIs was not of paramount importance to their rise to power. Being ultra-pro-German was, however, not to mention being extremely anti-Versailles. It WA important, but not to the level that many raise it to, IMO.

The anti-Jewish aspect was integral. The biggest contributor to his rise to power was Germany's political and economic climate. But you really can't have a "crusade" without an enemy. Hitler needed a scapegoat and the Jews were it.

TopJet2
06-22-2005, 04:02 PM
Has anyone seen the history channel show on the theory that Hitler had Parkinsons? The theory breaks down that the reason he started the war about 6 years before he originally planned is because he had Parkinsons disease and realized that he would not live to see the end of the war if he waited. From what I understand the whole German military machine including the huge navy and the advanced technoly for the Luftwaffe was on a time line to begin the war in '45. With the isolationist attitude in the US and crap leadership in the USSR, the Germans would have been so far advanced that they would have probably rolled through Europe very quickly.

Rausch
06-22-2005, 04:11 PM
The anti-Jewish aspect was integral. The biggest contributor to his rise to power was Germany's political and economic climate. But you really can't have a "crusade" without an enemy. Hitler needed a scapegoat and the Jews were it.

His scapegoat wasn't just Jews, it was also anyone retarded, gay, deformed or crippled, etc. Hitler wasn't very fond of gypsies (sp?) either.

Anyone he considered a weak or imperfect he figured was holding Germany back and Germany was wasting resources on them.

Rain Man
06-22-2005, 04:16 PM
His scapegoat wasn't just Jews, it was also anyone retarded, gay, deformed or crippled, etc. Hitler wasn't very fond of gypsies (sp?) either.

Anyone he considered a weak or imperfect he figured was holding Germany back and Germany was wasting resources on them.

You can add those subhuman Slavs to that list, too. He gave them more of a beating than just about anybody.

Donger
06-22-2005, 04:45 PM
The anti-Jewish aspect was integral. The biggest contributor to his rise to power was Germany's political and economic climate. But you really can't have a "crusade" without an enemy. Hitler needed a scapegoat and the Jews were it.

Yes, I know. I just don't believe that they were of paramount importance. He could have risen to power without the anti-Semitism, IMO. The hatred and shame of Versailles was enough. The anti-Semitism was just a bonus.

Amnorix
06-22-2005, 06:37 PM
I'm of the opinion that the anti-Jewish aspect of the NAZIs was not of paramount importance to their rise to power. Being ultra-pro-German was, however, not to mention being extremely anti-Versailles. It WA important, but not to the level that many raise it to, IMO.

It's easier to unite a race when you've got something to unite AGAINST. The Jews were cast into that role.

Also, (less importantly) tremendous wealth was expropriated from them in the latter 1930s, which didn't hurt the nearly unsustainable pace Hitler put the economy on.

Amnorix
06-22-2005, 06:40 PM
Has anyone seen the history channel show on the theory that Hitler had Parkinsons? The theory breaks down that the reason he started the war about 6 years before he originally planned is because he had Parkinsons disease and realized that he would not live to see the end of the war if he waited. From what I understand the whole German military machine including the huge navy and the advanced technoly for the Luftwaffe was on a time line to begin the war in '45. With the isolationist attitude in the US and crap leadership in the USSR, the Germans would have been so far advanced that they would have probably rolled through Europe very quickly.

The Parkinson's theory I have heard, but not that he made decisions because of it.

In any event, the USSR was building/modernizing its military at least as fast or faster than Germnay, and it's somewhat questionable whether the USSR would have waited until '45 to hit Germany. IMHO '41 was about the perfect time to hit the USSR.

I do agree that the German navy rebuilding program wasn't given nearly as much time as it needed. Not only quantity of U-Boats, but vast improvements in both U-Boat and torpedo technology was made during the course of the war.

Amnorix
06-22-2005, 06:43 PM
His scapegoat wasn't just Jews, it was also anyone retarded, gay, deformed or crippled, etc. Hitler wasn't very fond of gypsies (sp?) either.

Anyone he considered a weak or imperfect he figured was holding Germany back and Germany was wasting resources on them.

But I don't believe he did nearly as much in terms of propaganda to vilify these people as enemies of the Reich.

I agree he persecuted them as much as the Jews, but it was the Jews that he cast as the enemies of the state in order to help unify the "Aryan Race". That need to unify also led to some support for the Anchluss in Austria and the annexation of the Sudentenland. And misled the western allies into thinking that was "all he wanted".

Amnorix
06-22-2005, 06:43 PM
You can add those subhuman Slavs to that list, too. He gave them more of a beating than just about anybody.

Only after Germany conquered them. He didn't use them to help unify his people in advance of war.

Skip Towne
06-22-2005, 06:54 PM
How did Hitler build such a powerful navy while under the sanctions of Versaille? Wasn't anybody paying attention? I know Hitler skirted the sanctions with Pocket Battleships like the Graf Spee.

Amnorix
06-22-2005, 07:43 PM
How did Hitler build such a powerful navy while under the sanctions of Versaille? Wasn't anybody paying attention? I know Hitler skirted the sanctions with Pocket Battleships like the Graf Spee.

I believe Versailles limited the maximum tonnage of any given German ship, which is why they created the pocket battleships such as the Graf Spee, which you mention. The Graf Spee was built mainly during the Weimar Republic era, as were several other ships that weren't too large.

In the mid-30s, after Hitler rose to power, the Germans and British entered into an agreement permitting Germany to build up to a certain percentage of Britain's total tonnage of warships. Something south of 50%, IIRC.

Subs were also similarly limited.

Many such agreements were in place between the world's powers following World War I.

Skip Towne
06-22-2005, 07:48 PM
I believe Versailles limited the maximum tonnage of any given German ship, which is why they created the pocket battleships such as the Graf Spee, which you mention. The Graf Spee was built mainly during the Weimar Republic era, as were several other ships that weren't too large.

In the mid-30s, after Hitler rose to power, the Germans and British entered into an agreement permitting Germany to build up to a certain percentage of Britain's total tonnage of warships. Something south of 50%, IIRC.

Subs were also similarly limited.

Many such agreements were in place between the world's powers following World War I.
I've read they used a strategy that has been similarly used by the Denver Team of Disrepute. It's called CHEATING.

Amnorix
06-22-2005, 07:50 PM
I've read they used a strategy that has been similarly used by the Denver Team of Disrepute. It's called CHEATING.

Lot of that going on too. No doubt about it. The remilitarized the Rhine, reconstituted the German High Command, etc.

Skip Towne
06-22-2005, 07:56 PM
Lot of that going on too. No doubt about it. The remilitarized the Rhine, reconstituted the German High Command, etc.
While Hitler may have been "insane" he sure was a cunning and sly devil to be able to do what he did. When I get down on myself I say to myself "Listen, dipshit, that little 5'8" paperhanger (as Patton called him) nearly took over the world". "Why can't I at least accomplish this task?". It usually works.

Amnorix
06-22-2005, 08:03 PM
While Hitler may have been "insane" he sure was a cunning and sly devil to be able to do what he did. When I get down on myself I say to myself "Listen, dipshit, that little 5'8" paperhanger (as Patton called him) nearly took over the world". "Why can't I at least accomplish this task?". It usually works.

Like anyone who is not so insane as to be dysfunctional, he had strengths and weaknesses. I'm not even sure whether any psychologist would call him clinically insane under any circumstances.

In Weimar Germany, in the 1930s, the situation was simply perfect for someone of his "talents" to take over. Throw in the appeasement-oriented French and British, the stupidity of Stalin in killing something like 40,000 of his military officers, the military incompetence of Gamelin and the French, the isolationism of America, and you have a confluence of events which resulted in Hitler, in the span of 10 years, taking a ground-down Germany and conquering nearly all of Europe with it.

whoman69
06-22-2005, 08:12 PM
Second sentence -- correct, which is why I started a new thread. It's a different/tangential topic.
Please identify the historians to which you refer. I have not read too many which explicitly said "boy, were the Allies lucky to win this war. If only Hitler hadn't screwed up X, Y or Z, it would've been all over."
Seriously -- please tell me under what circumstances Hitler could possibly have invaded the United States?
Also, considering the way the war went, there was no chance Hitler could have successfully invaded England, given all that he knew at the time.
The original plan was to take one enemy on at a time. He wrote a never published sequel to Mein Kampf that outlined his strategy. He didn't expect to have to take on England, expecting to be able to satisfy them with a role in the world order since they were not of a lesser race. He hadn't planned to take on America either, originally believing them to have the best of each country. That idea was changed when he considered blacks and jews integrated into the population.
Additionally there were plans made for a long range super bomber that could reach America and a fleet of Bismark battleships. By winning one war at a time, he could rearm and use the additional resources to become even stronger.

JOhn
06-24-2005, 04:51 PM
I think here are a few things on what I think.

- Germany's navy. As a result, when the war started in 1939, the German navy had 3 mighty battleships, 8 heavy cruisers, and more in construction, and only 12 submarines capable of Atlantic operations (there were also 43 smaller submarines for coastal and training duties). It was a tiny fraction of the 300 Atlantic submarines Doenitz asked for (in order to always have 100 in position). It's important to state that with the resources and manpower needed to build and operate a single battleship, about 50 Atlantic submarines could be built and operated, so if Roeder or Hitler had supported Doenitz before the war, and for example built 150 more submarines by 1940 instead of the 3 almost useless battleships, Britain could have been decisively defeated at sea by 1941, before the US and Russia were at war.


Originally Hitler had set a date of 1944 to start the war, to enable the Navy to catch up to the Army & Air forces of Germany. There were even plans for two large aircraft carriers:eek:

Thank god Hitler was to impatient to wait.

JOhn
06-24-2005, 04:53 PM
http://photos2.flickr.com/3222503_da90a153e9_m.jpg
:D

Donger
06-24-2005, 04:54 PM
NOOOOOO!!!! See, THEY KEEP SUCKING ME BACK IN!!!

Donger
06-24-2005, 04:54 PM
:D

Heh. You don't think that that idiot understood that, do you?

JOhn
06-24-2005, 04:58 PM
How did Hitler build such a powerful navy while under the sanctions of Versaille? Wasn't anybody paying attention? I know Hitler skirted the sanctions with Pocket Battleships like the Graf Spee.
No one cared. :shrug:

America was isolationist to a fault, and the British really didn't care either. Everyone was sick of war after the first one, so they hoped by ignoring Hitler he would go away.

They even went as far as to ignore his annexation of the Ruhr back, among many many more blatant violations of the treaty

JOhn
06-24-2005, 05:00 PM
NOOOOOO!!!! See, THEY KEEP SUCKING ME BACK IN!!!
Net has been down for a few days, Lightning, so I'm just catching up. :D

Fairplay
06-24-2005, 05:47 PM
Throw in the appeasement-oriented French and British, the stupidity of Stalin in killing something like 40,000 of his military officers, Who cares, they were Communists! the military incompetence of Gamelin and the French, What did you expect? the isolationism of America, America wanted to look like the hero, and come in at the last second to save the world. and you have a confluence of events which resulted in Hitler, in the span of 10 years, taking a ground-down Germany and conquering nearly all of Europe with it. The only nation that had balls between its legs in Europe was England.

JOhn
06-24-2005, 06:14 PM
No, America wanted to stay completely OUT of Europe! Had nothing to do with wanting to be a hero. Or as you would say, we had no Balls, at least the majority.

As for England, they were not much better. If not for the prodding of Churchill, they would have rolled over for Hitler like the rest of Europe.

The Pedestrian
06-24-2005, 09:38 PM
Germany's only problem was creating the eastern front. Hitler could have maintained a relationship with Russia and asked for help with England, but he ended up going for Moscow and didn't make it because of the winter being the coldest in Russia ever (same problem Napoleon had, but taking out Russia wasn't necessarily a bad idea at either time). Anyway, by being attacked from two sides, Hitler was screwed and it was a matter of time. In keeping up the alliance with Japan by declaring war on the United States, Hitler got three powerful leaders to work on a plan that made Germany completely surrounded.