Could Hitler have won WW2

[starbuk]

Im talking hypotheticly if hitler did not break his treaty with russia and did not attack do you think hitler couldv'e won? i think he would and he would eventually defeat britain and america on europe. japan would have still been takin out and america would still be on north america.

[DavidUpton]

Moved to the WW2 History section...

[enigma]

Hyothetically - no

If by some mircale he was able to get some his men to step foot on England ... and they managed to win.
There surface fleet would have taken such a hammering by the Royal Navy ... in all possibilty fighting to the death to save the shores .... which is what they do - god bless em :D

That if he had of declared war on america its a good possibility that they would have managed to gain control of the seas and eventually imo liberate the UK.
Although Europe would be another Story ... but i would image somehow his little empire would have collasped.

Same again, say American didnt come into it ... the UK may have fell (again a real long shot) but somewhere along the line ... his empire would have fallen -infighting, overstrecthed, millions of seriously P'o people etc.

[starbuk]

Yea but i really think that they still could've won. hitler was pretty much a dumbass too in my ww2 book they say that he discontinued the production of many weapons and supplies for the eastern front (might be wrong right there not sure what side russia *east or west* was lol) but if he wasnt a bad commander he still might have won but i really think that britain would get screwed over if america didnt come in. if you think about it though he was fighting on a lot of fronts. he had to take out resistance attack britain and then attack russia. but if you thinkj about it if he did not backstab russia he would have tens of thousands of more troops on western europe. and germany in my view had much better weponry and better tanks and planes.

[PF-Kenny]

before he started concentrating on cities instead of aircraft production with his bombers, Hitler was days away from destroying Britians airforce. As has been shown, ships stand little chance against airplanes, so they could have been bombed and destroyed, while ground forces landed.
Assuming Hitler launched his offensive while the British were still recoiling from Dunkirk, they would have had few weapons to fight off his invasion with, so it would only have been a matter of time really

[DavidUpton]

Common mistake: the belief that the destruction of the Royal Air Force would have lead to the defeat of Britain.

Bear in mind that Britain still had one of the largest fleets in the world, much larger than Germany, and would have easily been able to cut off reinforcements arriving via sea.

Now, I have a flight to catch, and these airport computers are really annoying... :)

Adios.

[enigma]

Sealion would have failed, Fighter command was far from completely buggered.

Withdrawal to fields in the Midlands outside the range of the Luftwaffe, brining in the squadrons from Scotland, northern england etc

We would have been able to contest there airforce to the bitter end.

The navy it has been speculated would have destroyed itself in defence of the country ... as they did when get our boys home on many :( evacuations.

The german surface fleet would have to contest the largest Navy in the world.
We also had the majoirty of our aircraft carriers in Home waters, so they would have been able to provide air cover. Costal command and bomber command would have been able to throw there wieght in on surface ships, landings etc
They wanted to land paras on ground unsuitable (iirc thast what some milatry chaps stated) landing grounds.
The transport fleet was pitterful.

If they did land, iirc one of there landing zones put them right infront of a tank brigade and hundreds of pieces of arty ... not to mention infantry etc

If they did win, in such an invasion .... they would have taken horrendous losses.
The Luftwaffe screwed even more so, the Kriegsmarine surface fleet put in port for a long time - what was left of it, heavy infantry casulties etc

What would have they accomplished ... another country in exile who havnt surrended, the Royal navy what would have been left of it in Canada, the last raf planes burnt on the airfields .... they would have accoplished nothing hahaha :D ... well other then cutting off the troops in N.Africa from there main source of tanks, men and weapons (other things like food etc was supplied from the middle east etc)



Btw, in war games conducted post war - The German invasion failed all the time.

[xplosiv]

Even if we did fall, even if Nazi Germany had prevailed. They would still be constantly be harrassed by yet another underground resistance. Our inside forces were ready for the possibilities of occupation.

And of course, Hitler wouldn't have stopped at the British Isles, the United States was over the water and something tells me he would've 'awaken the beast' (as the Japanese had already done so). I believe he would've been fighting on another front either way, Hitlers obsessive ways would've cost him yet again somewhere down the line.

Thank god that we are an island nation though :) it's saved us/spared us time many times throughout history. From the spanish armada to the Nazis.

[enigma]

http://www.information-britain.co.uk/images/britflag.jpg
hums national anthem :)

[sid]

I think the weather saved us from the Armada. God bless our crappy climate.

[Arturo]

Yes, the main stupidity Hitler did was invade the Soviet union I have no doubt he could have crushed the U.K and the U.S

[sid]

Anyone know how many troops were in Britian around the time of the Battle of Britain?

[|Crimson|]

Nooo idea. But I met a bunch of American's while I was on holiday. None of them had even heard of the Battle of Britain....

And the Americans think they saved us...heh.

*Joins in National Anthem*

[herman]

Hitler actually wanted to be allied with the UK against Russia. If this would of happened I think he and the UK (maybe with the US, since they were allied with the UK) would have defeated Russia and ended the war.

[Kaos]

Man, people keep saying that it was stupid to invade the Soviet Union. But you're forgetting the reason he started the war, landspace for the volk. And the Soviet Union were ideologically opposed to the fascism of Nazi Germany and they were alot closer then the USA in terms of migration.

[PF-Kenny]

no, it wasnt stupid to invade the SU, HOWEVER it was stupid to invade when he did... you dont get one country po'd at you, and then go invade another

[SpicEwEazle]

Nooo idea. But I met a bunch of American's while I was on holiday. None of them had even heard of the Battle of Britain....

And the Americans think they saved us...heh.

*Joins in National Anthem*

um they saved australia, and They pretty much enabled the western allies to win the war.

[Timblesink]

Yeah, if those bloody yanks hadn't spammed their tanks (I'm a poet and I didn't know it) on the western front, the rest of the Allies would have been screwed. Well, would have had more chance of being screwed.

[Swede]

Yes i think Hitler could have won. but one of the things that killed his chance was the perdution of the Tiger tank as it didnt have very meany parts that could be taken off another tank to make quit repairs and they had a VERY bad reputaion for braking down.

but then on a secand note he still lost it because of some VERY key battles the allies won were the Germans just could not come back from.

Another thing that could have made a MAJOR impact for hitler winning the war would have if panzers in Normandy were ready insted of thinknig that the allies would not invade Normandy in the weather liek it was on June 6 44.

[mes]

Hitler is a little slow in the head, he nearly stopped the production of the StG44 because he thought it was "ugly" compared to the other weapons.

[DarkOmen]

Another thing that could have made a MAJOR impact for hitler winning the war would have if panzers in Normandy were ready insted of thinknig that the allies would not invade Normandy in the weather liek it was on June 6 44.

They could of still been sent in, but unfortuantly (For the Germans :P) You Know Who was having his nappy.

[PF-Kenny]

And the Americans think they saved us...heh.


how do you propose the UK could have invaded Normandy without US tanks, troups, ships, landing craft, airplanes, etc

look at the numbers, even as it was the allies were outnumbered in normandy, and it was just due to Hitler's misconceptions that a lot of the troups in the rear wernt commited till late, plus those at Calais

Also, if Britian was alone there would have been no way that they could have even invaded the mainland, so they would be stuck on their little island, being bombed daily

Also without American ships, the Brits couldnt have breached the U-Boat blockade (even before the US was involved in the war, they were still helping defend shipping)

Without supplies it would only have been a matter of time until the airforce was destroyed, and without the airforce, the ships would be sitting ducks, as would the shore artillery

with proper preperatory strikes, and proper planning and patiance, Britain would eventually be invaded and captured, though I have no doubt that those brits would give the Nazi's hell via guerrilla warfare :p

admit it, we saved your butt

and its only idiots who dont know what the battle of britian was

[Fallschirmjäger]

They had to many other countries realy against them and on to many fronts with the usa's power and wealth too,but then again they may have had a nuke of some sorts or just won them battles that counted and could have done it?.

[OliverMarshall]

There was a great thread in the old forum about it, I came up with yes he could have one. By not wanting to attack the Soviet Union he could have released 3 airfleets from the eastern front. That means there would have been 4 Me109's for every Spitfire........

Eventually his worst mistakes were beliving that Britain was finished, leaving North Afrika to the Italians and not mobilizing the civilian work force to the appropiate degree.

Anyway can'r be bothered to go into it more.......

EDIT:Also about the 'surface fleet' with around 3000+ bombers over the English Channel, nothing could have stopped a relativley easy invasion across the channel.

[Lordwatson]

Germany may have invaded but I dont think ANYBODY would be happy. I can invisage farmers with shotguns fighting alongside British regulars defending the country they love. And invading Scotland?! Give me a break, the Highlands are an excellent place to keep an army in waiting.

[OliverMarshall]

They used to be because of the sheer distance, but there is only the heather, no forest to hide large bodies of troops in. With air superiority you can eliminate any army in the open.

[Sgt So and So]

They used to be because of the sheer distance, but there is only the heather, no forest to hide large bodies of troops in. With air superiority you can eliminate any army in the open.
With crappy weather, who needs forests?;)

[Ginger Lord]

If the Germans had destroyed the RAF and the RN (a very hard task as like was said early the RN would destroy itself defending the country) the transports Germans had were poor (barges...) and there was very very few beaches that were suitable to be landed on.

The best beaches had heavy natural features (Cliffs of Dover) and those that they chose were very long and shallow and the only way to get close to the seafront was to wait for a high tide, highly predicatble. Not to mention we actually mined our beaches to hell and had heavy defences.

So the Germans finally get through that, probably sustained heavy casulties and now they'd have to cope with an army that wouldnt surrender under any causes (unlike France) and a civilian population. It would be like a mini-normandy in many places due to the close knit hedgerow networks, combined with the usual cloud cover Britain has would make this a very hard task. Not to mention you have to ship all your supplies across the Channel.

The Kriegsmarine would of course have to stop all the ships up in Scarpa Flow in Northern Scotland else they'd just run amok in the channel. If the BoB had been won at the time the Bismarck wouldn't have been commisioned let alone done sea trials so would be unavailable, Tirpitz was roaming somewhere in the Atlantic and Arctic. Thats Germany's two best capital ships unavailable. I seriously doubt they would have beaten the RN anyway.

As for americans saving us. We didn't need help defending our island and carrying on as normal. Invading Europe was a different matter. Same for the 101st at Bastogne where you say you didn't need help.

[Arturo]

Another main stupidity of Hitler was to go for the Stalingrad and the Kaukasus in 1942 his generals had told him that they still had 2 years worth of oil so it was best for them to go for Moscow.

[biggles]

History is written, and just as Agathon said: "Not even God can change the passed", we can't tell what would happened if Hitler won this and that. It's impossible, so I mostly try to not think of it. I like history as it turned out to be, because it's unthinkable to see it another way without thinking in lies. However, if you want me to stop being so bloody serious about things (!!!!!!!!:mad: ) let me just tell you this: Bless you "winners" of the war!

[OliverMarshall]

Pretty good argument. We have the benifit of hindsight, Hitler did now what we can say is that it was stupid of him to take over as Chief of Staff.

[biggles]

Yes, and, luckily, we humans have the ability to imagine things, otherwise this world would be rather boring, but I still say that history is like time, old as hell and it just keep going, and wont be able to compromise! (heh, history is really just as old as time, but still.....)

[[BEF]-R!G4M0RT!Z]

Hitler wouldn't have been able to successfully invade England, in my opinion, because of our reserves for the airforce in the North of England and the Midlands. Also, the navy would have been a tough force to contend with, and Britain would never surrender.
As for Britain liberating France, and the rest of Europe without the US, that is a different story, because there just wouldn't be the manpower, even with the troops from the rest of the British Empire. But just because the US were supplying the British with tanks, doesn't mean that the US 'saved our butts', because its as Churchill said, "you give us the tools, and we'll finish the job."

[EvilHobo]

I don't think that invasion of Britain would be possible, but breaking the RAF and British industry to the point of surrender could have worked.

I'd go so far as to say that the resistance of Greece against the Italians ruined the Axis effort in the east, because it forced the Germans to divert forces to the Balkans when they should have had those troops mobilizing/mobilized on the Eastern Front. If the invasion happened in May, I would consider it a distinct possibility that the Germans could have reached Moscow prior to the mud/snow setting in.

Possible from June 22nd onward? Yes, in my opinion. Failure to seize Leningrad and instead choosing to begin a seige when the Red Army units in the area were at the brink of collapse hindered the advance on Moscow considerably, as the 8. Armee was tied up and there was no connection made with the Finnish army.

Should the initial 1941 campaign have gone as it had, one of the great mistakes with Operation Blue was failure to capture the Russian army at Voronezh, where as many as one million Soviet soldiers escaped the 4. Panzerarmee to reinforce Stalingrad.

Following the failure at Stalingrad, there was no chance for a decisive strategic victory, at best a draw could be achieved. Following Kursk, no chance remained for an outcome favorable to the Germans.

Now provided that the USSR was defeated or forced out of the war prior to 1943, I could see Germany winning the war. With that amount of manpower and equipment thrown West, Germany could have retained control of Europe and passed production priorities from tanks to aircraft and naval vessels for a continuation of a war against the US/UK.

[warfreak]

no way if berlin did manage to hold out russias attack won't they have to deal with America and Britain?

[ikillnothing]

hitler wouldnt have won if he invaded england we where set up for it lots of deffence lines and the homeguard we was set up to fight to the last man we even had a resistence set up to destroy german tanks and bases/airfields but 89% of war battle sims that was done we had brokenthem before they got to london and had them in full retreat:cool:

also our navy wasnt much help as at the time when hitler was going to invade most of our fleet was 400 miles away:rolleyes: if u walk round the countryside you can see all the pillboxes and tank trenches/traps we have one down the road in a field :)

[Psycho Sam]

Well I think the term 'Won World War 2' needs clearing up. Considering he may have not stopped at Europe and gone on further. As many people are talking about the invasions of Britain I think he could of done pretty successfully.

Hitler made some pretty dire decisions though. Firstly he attacked Russia which he should have not done. It is almost imossible to wage war against two huge fronts simultaneously. If he had maintained relationships with Russia and maybe offered them Scandanavia then he could keep them as powerful allies.

Secondly not his direct fault but Japan attacking America was the biggest mistake of the war. It really screwed up everything as America had the resources that turned them into an unstoppable force.

Thirdly the German Luftwaffe stopped bombing the RAF on the ground and turned to bombing the cities in an attempt to break the morale of Britian.


If Hitler had not attacked Russia and Japan had not attacked America then Germany would of succeeded in the attacks on Britian. Hitler just needed to continue to bomb the Airfields and Industry of Southern England. With all the extra men that Hitler could of had not tied up on the Eastern front he would of had a huge invasion force.

At this time Britians main source of supplies was from the US. Hitler could send his U-Boat wolf packs to the Atlantic and effectively cut supplies to Britain. Along with the bombing of the airfields and industry Britain would be crippled. The next stage would be to knock out the radar stations. Without these the RAF would be blind allowing free reign over the skies of southern England. Now with complete air supiority Hitler could lauch his invasion fleet. Also you must remember the British fleet was well past the glory days of the first World War and not as good as you may of expected. I think with combined air, U-Boat and naval attacks the Navy would be seriously crippled.


Britain would of resisted certainly but the home guard was no match for the German war machine. In under a six months the whole of the UK would be conquered. Even if the UK asked for help from the US could they really help as Hitler would have pretty much control of the Eastern Atlantic ocean stopping any ships trying to bring aid.

With the UK conquered there is no real way America could reclaim Europe without a hugley costly and lengthy campaign. Plus Japan is ready and waiting to attack with its Carrier fleets..

[EvilHobo]

What people fail to realize is that if Hitler had not attacked Stalin that Stalin would have attacked Hitler. The Red Army was designed as an offensive army, which is why it faltered on the defense in the opening months of Barbarossa. There is more than enough evidence to support this hypothesis.

[enigma]

be stuck on their little island
Hey watch that tonge :p


being bombed daily

The blitz, even though it killed quite alot of people, did not stop the industry, did not brake the peoples morale ect etc ...
We were also inflicting a loss of around 2% on there attacking forces, in the end when they broke off the blitz that had ammounted to 600 bombers.


Without supplies it would only have been a matter of time until the airforce was destroyed
We were pumping out the fighters and spare parts needed, able to resuce many of out downed pilots, and where slowly regaining pliot strength via training - although slowly (but then that didnt stop them being flung into combat)
We also had oil supplies to keep them in the air.


how do you propose the UK could have invaded Normandy without US tanks, troups, ships, landing craft, airplanes, etc
How do you propose the US invaded normandy without British, Canadian etc troops? Ships from all the other countries and without the arifroces of all other allies ready to help.

But then the US did want to scarfice the British army in a landing in either 42 or 43, cant remember which. The point being to land and form a small beachead and stay there.




I'd go so far as to say that the resistance of Greece against the Italians ruined the Axis effort in the east, because it forced the Germans to divert forces to the Balkans when they should have had those troops mobilizing/mobilized on the Eastern Front.
Wasnt it due to the smal ammount of British troops being sent there that the Germans ordered men south to finnish the job the Italians started since our guys where now within range of the Rumanian oil fields?


Operation Sealion - naval strengths (At the time, it would seem))

Home fleet - Kriegsmarine
5 capital ships - 1 capital ship
11 cruisers - 1 cruiser
53 destroyers - 10 destroyers
23 destroyers on convoy duty - 20-30 submarines + a few dozen if that torp boats
In addition, the RN had countless smaller craft, including sloops, minesweepers, converted trawlers etc

Plus the fact that within a month the Med fleet could be in home waters - less in fact since iirc the navy took 40 days to get ships over to Singapore.

It has been proposed that the Kriegsmarine would also have to strip its ships to skelton crews in some cases, so that the barges and other ships planned to be used could be actually used.
It has been proposed that the invasion force would be in the channel for around 30 hours - due to the slow speed of the craft they planned to use.

It would seem facing the 9th armee landings there would be (no info on other armee landing grounds):
2 Territorial Divisions (not Home guard untis)
1 Brigade from India
1 Brigade from new Zealand
1 Armoured Division
1 Canadian Division
1 Army Tank Brigade

There was also the renemants of the BEF, and whatever else we had sitting in the country. I believe we also had the capabilites of using poisn gas :D


Edit:

At this time Britians main source of supplies was from the US. Hitler could send his U-Boat wolf packs to the Atlantic and effectively cut supplies to Britain.
Tried that - didnt work :p


The Red Army was designed as an offensive army, which is why it faltered on the defense in the opening months of Barbarossa. There is more than enough evidence to support this hypothesis.

Aye your right, they probaly would have attacked first if given a few years.
However ... they faltered on the defence due to inexperianced Junior and higher officers tanks to the Purges ... given stand fast orders by Stalin and in the first few days of the fighting where ordered not fight back in some cases.
Oh and Stalin also ignored countless warnings that the Germans where about to attack - they knew they where building up on the borders and were even warned by the British.

However saying that ... they put a hell of a fight in places! (not on about Stalingrad and Lenningrad btw)

[EvilHobo]

Wasnt it due to the smal ammount of British troops being sent there that the Germans ordered men south to finnish the job the Italians started since our guys where now within range of the Rumanian oil fields?


Yes, the British presence there made the German attack necessary in order to secure the southern flank, but the Greeks had been resisting since October of 1940. It was also because Crete was now open to the Allies for usage as something of an "unsinkable carrier" from which bombers could be launched toward Ploesti in Romania. Even with mainland Greece in Axis hands, they also had to strike at Crete, further delaying the German advance.

As far as I'm concerned Mussolini should have just kept his hands off.

[Mademan]

He couldn't. If he hadn't attacked Russia, Stalin would have attacked Germany sooner or later. And against the US and Russia (Not to mention all the other countries)they had no chance.

[enigma]

Yes, the British presence there made the German attack necessary in order to secure the southern flank, but the Greeks had been resisting since October of 1940. It was also because Crete was now open to the Allies for usage as something of an "unsinkable carrier" from which bombers could be launched toward Ploesti in Romania. Even with mainland Greece in Axis hands, they also had to strike at Crete, further delaying the German advance.

As far as I'm concerned Mussolini should have just kept his hands off.
Yep, have read a little about the resistance the Greeks put up agaisnt the Italians.

Irrc they didnt not only stop the Italian attack, didnt they counter into Albania ... or at least retake lost ground?

[343Guiltyspark]

hitler could have won the war if he didnt attack russia , that was stupid

[sid]

Hitler could've won the war if he had attacked right he attacked Poland I think. The Soviet army like people said was an offensive army and was being rebuilt at the time. Altough Barbarossa proved that you can't launch a Blitzkrieg attack on such large a scale as your armies use too many supplies and they move too quickly to be resupplied.

[enigma]

hitler could have won the war if he didnt attack russia , that was stupid
That was the point of the war ;)

[OliverMarshall]

1. Rule of War (by Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery of Alemain, just making sure there is no mistake ;) )

: Don't attack russia!

Also by him: Anyone who votes Labour should be locked up!.:rolleyes:


Also there were more British troops on in Normandy than there were American, and you yanks did not do it on your own. Only the Russians or Germans could do that.

[DraKon2k]

1. Rule of War (by Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery of Alemain, just making sure there is no mistake ;) )

: Don't attack russia!

Also by him: Anyone who votes Labour should be locked up!.:rolleyes:


Also there were more British troops on in Normandy than there were American, and you yanks did not do it on your own. Only the Russians or Germans could do that.
Again: It's a fact that if Hitler hadn't attacked the SU, Stalin had most likely attacked Germany.

[Arturo]

Agreed Stalin was arming up for an eventual war with Germany

[Psycho Sam]

Maybe but if Hitler had consolodated his forces and maybe planned things a bit better he would of done well. Also there is no saying for sure Stalin would of attacked. If Hitler had given him Finland, Sweeden, Norway and maybe Poland I dont think Stalin would of attacked. That leaves Hitler with the rest of Europe and North Africa.

[Chukada]

In an age of comunication, no matter how fast and strong your tanks are, one nation can't win a world war. Rome conquered the known world, because one nation wouldn't have to worry about the other. If Rome conquered Gaul, do you think the Parthians would care?

Its impossible to win such a thing through military might. Hitler needed allies, and many of them. He needed to create puppet goverments, like Vichy France; which is why it fell so fast. To stand down a nations armies, then turn on your allies in one desisive blow.

So my conclusion is he could have one the war, but not through military might. Politics. If there is to be a World War III, it shall be fought with goverments, civilians, and spies.

[Sgt So and So]

In an age of comunication, no matter how fast and strong your tanks are, one nation can't win a world war. Rome conquered the known world, because one nation wouldn't have to worry about the other. If Rome conquered Gaul, do you think the Parthians would care?

Its impossible to win such a thing through military might. Hitler needed allies, and many of them. He needed to create puppet goverments, like Vichy France; which is why it fell so fast. To stand down a nations armies, then turn on your allies in one desisive blow.

So my conclusion is he could have one the war, but not through military might. Politics. If there is to be a World War III, it shall be fought with goverments, civilians, and spies.
But the next one will still be fought with sticks and stones, right?:D

[Yaguer]

Hitler could've won World War 2 of course, he could of but due to industrial strains, his interventions into his general staffs and generals duties and importantly allying himself with Italy in the first place set him up. Still, he had a great chance to win and Russia was being wasted by the Germans anyway. Only a matter of time...

[enigma]

In an age of comunication, no matter how fast and strong your tanks are, one nation can't win a world war. Rome conquered the known world, because one nation wouldn't have to worry about the other. If Rome conquered Gaul, do you think the Parthians would care?

Its impossible to win such a thing through military might. Hitler needed allies, and many of them. He needed to create puppet goverments, like Vichy France; which is why it fell so fast. To stand down a nations armies, then turn on your allies in one desisive blow.

So my conclusion is he could have one the war, but not through military might. Politics. If there is to be a World War III, it shall be fought with goverments, civilians, and spies.

I fail to see how politics can win a war :confused:

Civies and spies yes ... spies as proven during ww2 - provide the fighting men with intel and provide disinformation to the enemy, drawing away forces.
Civies, as they can be turned into a fighting soldier like most of us could if the time came and thus for the industries which war is built upon.

But still cant see how politicians arguing with one another would slove anything?

[Chukada]

It's impossible to fight the world, there are just too many people. You have to win the hearts and minds of this planets people to unite them.

Earth, having so many different ideas, and ideology, its just impossible to controll it. Unless the world is on your side. But Nazi ideology is just not allowed in large portions of the world. They would have to change policies, ideologies, I.E politics.

Politics>Military>World Conquered. :cool:

[enigma]

So they start a war based around there ideas, ideologies etc

Being something along the lines of:

Throw out the Versaillies treaty,
Reunite the German speaking people,
Get living space in the Soviet Union,
Obiously, the nasty business of getting rid of people they didnt like and creating the master race,
possibly a small ammount of revenge too for ww1

half way through that they change there political point of view and there ideals to get people to support them so they can win the war?

Do you think that the switch of polices, politics etc would get occupied and previously oppressed people to like them. To get countries which are fighting them for a just cause to suddenly stop coz there now nices guys lol?

How does one propose they shift the worlds opinion of them being evil etc and turn themselves into a fun loving country led by the dude who played hitler in The Producers?

[Vanity]

Okay so Hitler winning the war i believ was possible aswell in his grasp. I was watchin somin' on the BoB last night n 'if' Hitler didn't change his attention to London then the Whole RAF and it reserves would of been distroyed within 6 weeks(:( ). Therefore without air superiority anything land or sea can be vulnerable to tactical or stratigic bombing which are both as deverstating.

If hitler had placed all attention on doing somin' (And not be so much of a woman and changing his mind so much <Meant in all good respects:p >) then he may of got somewhere in the war.

But personally if he was goning to conquer the world or whatever he should of1:Stayed on at bombing the airfields of britian then invading after the RAF was gone.
2:Never gone to North Africa till britian was over.
3:Then AND ONLY THEN. When Britian and how ever much of North Africa he wanted was his. Move into Russia.

As we've said before its all hine-sight so we can correct everything we want. But please note if your going to invade Russia with a force the size of what the Nazi's had, Use all of it!:D

[EvilHobo]

Indeed, the RAF was on the brink of destruction, but I do not know if Britain would have fell, as German aircraft do not occupy land. You could possibly achieve air superiority so overwhelming that it would negate the need for a large surface fleet, but I am not so sure that would have happened. And in order to make an invasion of Britain easier, if not possible at all, the Allied forces at Dunkirk would have to have been captured rather than left to return to the British Isles. Not only that, but I have a feeling that the total loss of the BEF would have been a staggering morale blow to the British.

Even so, the war was to be decided in the East.

[Yaguer]

It's impossible to fight the world, there are just too many people. You have to win the hearts and minds of this planets people to unite them.

Earth, having so many different ideas, and ideology, its just impossible to controll it. Unless the world is on your side. But Nazi ideology is just not allowed in large portions of the world. They would have to change policies, ideologies, I.E politics.

Politics>Military>World Conquered.

Hitler wasn't about uniting the world, he united the Germanic speaking people of europe and wanted to eradicate the slavics, as in the Lithuanians, Estonians, Russians, ecetera.

I really don't understand what you're saying, Hitler never fought the world, he fought the Allied of a dozen nationalities and with his Axis allies, but that does not constitute the world whatsoever.

Also it is not "impossible to control them". You don't need to. What would the autocracy or capitalistic government of a small country you occupy have an affect on your powerful nation? Slave labor? Free resources, military access?
What you have said is just completely, wrong. Rejustify.


As we've said before its all hine-sight so we can correct everything we want. But please note if your going to invade Russia with a force the size of what the Nazi's had, Use all of it!

Well most of Hitler's army was involved. Approximately 3 million in the beginning, late at 13th million if I am correct. Just Hitler intervened to much into his general's affairs as well made strategic errors that he couldn't recover from (*Stalingrad*).


I fail to see how politics can win a war

Civies and spies yes ... spies as proven during ww2 - provide the fighting men with intel and provide disinformation to the enemy, drawing away forces.
Civies, as they can be turned into a fighting soldier like most of us could if the time came and thus for the industries which war is built upon.

But still cant see how politicians arguing with one another would slove anything?

You have it completely wrong mate. What is the purpose of fighting without reason? If you're going to conquer a peoples, why? Slaughtering? Politics.

[EvilHobo]

What is the purpose of fighting without reason? If you're going to conquer a peoples, why? Slaughtering? Politics.

Most wars are for wholly economic purposes.

[enigma]

to eradicate the slavics, as in the Lithuanians, Estonians, Russians, ecetera.


From what ive read the Baltic states where pretty fine under German rule (unless you where Jewish :( ).
Seems they went along with the Germans, quite a few of them fighting along side them during the war and afterwards with stragglers in a guerilla war.


Slavic peoples are traditionally divided along linguistic lines into West Slavic (including Czechs, Poles and Slovaks), East Slavic (including Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians), and South Slavic (including Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs and Slovenians).

Although one should note that quite a number of Slavs fought under German rule (Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, poles etc) and that Germany allied it self with "slavic countries" (Croatia, Bulgaria).


You have it completely wrong mate. What is the purpose of fighting without reason? If you're going to conquer a peoples, why? Slaughtering? Politics.

politics failed and thats why the war started.

Hitler and Stalin where apposed not to each political thoughts but the ideologies of each country, which in turn is a collection of ideas - social, political, financial, philosophical etc

Expansionism -

In Hitler's book Mein Kampf, he made clear his belief that the German people needed Lebensraum ("living space", i.e. land and raw materials), and that it should be found in the East.

Militarism and Nationalism, the ideas of the leaders and the people, a reunited Germany and one which didnt obey the rules of the Versaillies treaty.

Racism - welll just look at what they all did ... not just the politicians.

Great Depression - enonomically everything went down the drain ... which helped lead the raise of facist parties etc which turned played on the peoples nationlist ideas.



btw barbarossa kicked off with around 3.2 million men, which one would assume to be a collection of German, Austrians, Czechs, Hungerians, Rumanians, Finnish and possibly a small number of Italians (60 000 men iirc started off in the front sometime in '41).

As for strength of troops, figures i have seen would put the Wehrmacht strength at its peek in 1943 with 9.500.000 men within its ranks (one should note that is not bayonet strength that is overall strength and am unsure if this counts just the men within Heer or Heer, Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine since the Wehrmacht is made up of all of them)
Throw in Waffen SS strength and you get around 10.5 million men (Again Waffen SS strength is not baynet strength).

around 11.6 million men on the Eastern Front it would seem if you factor in Italy, Hungary, Finland and Romania.
200 000 italians - based off actual figures
The following based off milatry deaths:
300 000+ Hungarians
300 000+ Romanians
95 000 Finns

The only figure ive seen for 13million is off the wiki and no more else, whereas ive seen several sources to back up the ~10-11 million figure.

Once must also remember that all these troops where not fighting on the Eastern front, nor does it represent bayonet strength - guys in the frontline.

The Struggle for Europe by Chester Wilmot states that (as of 1944) 59 divisions in France, 12 divisions in Norway, 6 divisions in Denmark, 26 divisions in Italy, 9 divisions in Germany, 21 divisions in the Balkans, 6 divisions in Finland, 40 divisions in the Baltic States (army group north), 41 Divisions in Belorussia (army group centre), 41 divisions bordering the Ukraine (Army group North ukraine?) and 35 divisions in southern Ukraine and Rumania (Army group south ukraine?)

If you work that would mean each division was at a strength of around 40000 men to get to the 11 million mark ... however the majoirty of the divisions where may under strength and ive read somewhere that most divisions had around the 15000 mark.

[EvilHobo]

From what ive read the Baltic states where pretty fine under German rule (unless you where Jewish :( ).
Seems they went along with the Germans, quite a few of them fighting along side them during the war and afterwards with stragglers in a guerilla war.

Although one should note that quite a number of Slavs fought under German rule (Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, poles etc) and that Germany allied it self with "slavic countries" (Croatia, Bulgaria).

Right again. Latvia for instance contributed as many men per capita as did Germany, totalling some 150,000 volunteers for the Waffen-SS.

And yes, many Slavs fought for Germany, mostly because many perceived communism as being the prime evil in Europe, wanting to fight against it. The Russian people were very supportive of the Germans in the opening stages of Barbarossa; it is a shame that the "Reich commissars" did not realize the advantages which could be provided by conquering more than just the land.

There is also Galacia, which was for some reason, left virtually untouched by the Final Solution. Made up of a population of mostly Poles and Ukrainians, it believe that the region was classified as being "civilized" and thus was avoided. It would later be incorporated in to the Generalgouvernment.

[[BEF]-R!G4M0RT!Z]

Going back to 'Operation Sealion', I watched this program about the Home Guard today, and about the wargame that was done in 1974, it included some of the German people who helped devise the plan, and some of Britains top strategists, and it was proven that the plan would have probably failed, had it gone ahead. This was even if the Luftwaffe had bombed the RAF until they were pushed back, out of range of the Kriegsmarine, and also included pushing the Navy back to Scapa Flow.
The Kriegsmarine were able to land 90,000 troops on the beaches of Britain, and then the Navy was able to come down from Scapa Flow to intercept the supporting Kriegsmarine ships, and cut off the supplies and re-inforcements (including the vital Panzer battalions) to the German troops, who had reached south-eastern Kent when they were halted due to lack of ammunition and supplies. They were halted at one of the long defensive lines, and the British Army was allowed to ammass forces in the area, including 2 Tank battalions, and the British army was then able to push the Germans back to the beaches, and the remaining German forces were surrounded, because the Navy were able to re-capture the Channel.

[deathknight]

Yes

If Hitler had:
1. Not attacked Russia.
2. Not declared war on the U.S.
3. Listened to his generals.
4. Not misused his air force against the UK

I think many don't realize how close Britian was to be knocked out of the war. But Himmler made a huge mistake sending his bombers too far without fighter support and intot he heart of the British air defenses.

Even once Operation Torch was successful and the U.S. and British had landed in North Africa Germany was still in control. But the losses in Russia, the over-reliance on the blitzkrieg style of warfare and the inability to learn from the past - not outdistancing ones supplies, land wars in russia, russian winters, etc. - doomed germany to failure. But the biggest was hitler's megalomania which much like anakin skywalker led him to view anyone who criticized him as an enemy.

[EvilHobo]

Yes

If Hitler had:
1. Not attacked Russia.


Read all the posts in this thread, and then you can come to a conclusion.

[BillSpargo]

They could have settled it man to man, Queensbury Rules fashion.

Hitler
Mussolini
Hirohito
vs
Roosevelt
Churchill
Stalin

[enigma]

Yes

If Hitler had:
1. Not attacked Russia.
2. Not declared war on the U.S.
3. Listened to his generals.
4. Not misused his air force against the UK

I think many don't realize how close Britian was to be knocked out of the war. But Himmler made a huge mistake sending his bombers too far without fighter support and intot he heart of the British air defenses.

Even once Operation Torch was successful and the U.S. and British had landed in North Africa Germany was still in control. But the losses in Russia, the over-reliance on the blitzkrieg style of warfare and the inability to learn from the past - not outdistancing ones supplies, land wars in russia, russian winters, etc. - doomed germany to failure. But the biggest was hitler's megalomania which much like anakin skywalker led him to view anyone who criticized him as an enemy.

firstly, Himmler was not in command of the air force :) That would be Goring.
Now the bombers could strike as far north (as far as am aware) from France as Liverpool, they could attack Scotland from Norway too.
There fighters just didnt have the range, again as far as aware to escort them all the way.
There choice to attack these targets did make sence, Liverpool - one of the countries main ports during the time ... massive dock area and loads of factories. So it was an ideal choice and it would seem they could not just leave it in action.

Operation Torch, as you said was teh British landing of Anglo-American troops in North Africa from the west .... however (as it seems you may not have know this) a Anglo-Empire force was already fighting in Africa agaisnt the Italians and Germans from the east.
German and Italian forces had lost control of Africa but would still be able to put up a fight and in places nearly cause disaster for the Anglo-American-CW forces facing them there.

:)

As for the Soviet Union ... the Germans and there allies could have won it ....



Spargonaut:
I can see how it would go Hitler and Hirohito would go for cheap low blows at Churhill and Stalin ... Mussolini
would linger around at the back and try not get involved too much ....
Churchill would belly bounce Hitler towards Stalin who ... by now is playing dirty and has doffed some kunckle dusters and would deck H.
Mussolini would surrender ....
Churchill would then drop Hirohito to the fall and jump on him ... followed up by Roosevelt running him over.

Allied victory! :p

[deathknight]

Read all the posts in this thread, and then you can come to a conclusion.

i'll get right on that ass


firstly, Himmler was not in command of the air force :) That would be Goring.
Now the bombers could strike as far north (as far as am aware) from France as Liverpool, they could attack Scotland from Norway too.
There fighters just didnt have the range, again as far as aware to escort them all the way.
There choice to attack these targets did make sence, Liverpool - one of the countries main ports during the time ... massive dock area and loads of factories. So it was an ideal choice and it would seem they could not just leave it in action.

As for the Soviet Union ... the Germans and there allies could have won it ....

Allied victory! :p

you are right - himmler wasn't in charge of air force

as for the other points, the thing was rommel would have had no trouble beating the english in africa if they had more material - he lost one battle and had to keep retreating because he had no reserves

the other thing was bombin england wasn't stupid but the loss of bombers due to inadequate protection was unforgivable

lastly, imo the soivet union was an unwinnable war for the germans due to the fact the soviet union had a much higher population, and therefore could raise a larger army and could produce more tanks, planes, etc. nothing is impossible but i just don't see how germany could have overcome all the limitations they faced in material, population, and russian terrain

if they had beaten england and japan could have kept the US busy in the pacific then they would have had a chance since alot of the materiel and equipment used by russia came from the UK and US

[enigma]

Well it has been theroised that if there had not been the 6 week delay with tackling the Anglo-CW-Greek force that Barbarossa could have been won.

It has also been theroised, if Operation Typhoon - the attack on Moscow had been launched earlier, the Germans could have been in Moscow by Winter, instead they had turned there attention south to tackle the Ukraine first.

Should also note that with there Finnish, Rumanian, Hungerian and Italian allies they crushed the Soviet army in 1941, sure they where slowed down in the South my constant Soviet counter attacks but they took large ammount if land, destroyed a large ammount of planes and captured or killed millions of the Red Army.

Winter '41 brought about the Soviet counterattack which halted Typhoon and pushed the German army back from Moscow ... however they had no where near defeated the Whermacht.
During '42 smaller encirclment operations where launched then the pervious years larger ones result being the capture of more land, the desctruction of even more of the Red Army.

The year ended with Stalingrad, by the end of the winter, Stalingrad had been retaken and land retook ... but still the German army was undefeated, which then retook the inititive and launched more attacks - Kharkov, Kursk etc

By which point, allied landings in Italy drew off some forces, and the Ruskies beat the crap out of a bunch of them.

Within those first 2 years ... it would seem the Germany army and its allies could of ... possibly nearly did beat the Soviet Union.

In '43 it has been theroised it could have still brought about soem form of ceasfire/peace deal due the large ammount of POWs and land it still had under its control.

Following that ... it would seem its all very much downhill ... well later '43 onwards.



Edit: EvilHobo and Deathknight .... please try to be civil with one another....

[deathknight]

good points you bring up

it's alot of what if, and no way to know for sure

imo, the tuffness of the soviet people would have been too much

but germans were tuff as well and excellently trained so anything is possible

[EvilHobo]

All I stated was read the thread. The "well if Hitler didn't attack Russia" explanation is one of the most overused things that is said, and its been stated time and time again that if he hadn't started Barbarossa, Stalin would have attacked Germany. If you think that Soviet material advantage was bad even after Germany attacked, imagine what it would have been like if the Soviets attacked with all of that, all of their planes, equipment, tanks...the war would have been ended much, much quicker.

Just, you know, have some respect.

[deathknight]

if i was disrespectful i apologize, but i felt i needed to put the do not attack russia in there to be accurate - i know it is stated alot but it is a big factor

imo germany could not have beaten russia

too many variables, too many problems to overcome

think about all the problems of uprisings they would have had to deal with since i'm sure the conquered populations would not have liked being treated as second class citizens

but like i said b4 there is no way to prove what would have happened

and i did state the materiel problem would have been worse if germany had taken out the UK and the US was still fightin japan

[EvilHobo]

And yes, many Slavs fought for Germany, mostly because many perceived communism as being the prime evil in Europe, wanting to fight against it. The Russian people were very supportive of the Germans in the opening stages of Barbarossa; it is a shame that the "Reich commissars" did not realize the advantages which could be provided by conquering more than just the land.


Stated. The Russians did want to help the Germans to rid Russia of Stalinism, many would come out to bring Germans food; Guderian's memoirs mention a Russian having made eggs for him. It's a terrible thing what happened to the Russian people, as that ideological racial viewpoint expressed by the Nazi government led to the suffering of the Russian people and later the German people by not destroying communism outright, using the resources at hand, i.e., Soviet citizens.

A shame, really.

[PF-Kenny]

If as was stated, Germany held onto the support of the Russian people, the probably could have won the war on the Eastern Front. If they won they could probably conscript a large army from Russia to help defend against any invasion of Europe, as well as the fact that they wouldnt have to have any troops tied down in Russia. Germany wouldn't have to defeat England to win the war, if they managed to consolidate their gains, they could have just kept what they had.

With Russia controlled they would have access to vast reserves of resources, which they did not have as the war panned out.


In any war there are so many variables that if changed could turn the entire war around. It would have been difficult to invade England within several years, but if Russia were controlled, which was possible, then resources could have been stockpiled, and a navy built over a period of several years. Eventually, assuming that Britain didnt agree to peace, there would be an invasion, and if proper technique was used to prepare, it would have been possible for victory, although the several years that the Germans built up would mean that the British would have extensive defences.
But so far one thing hasnt been mentioned, gas. During WWII Germany developed nerve gasses, such as Sarin. If used in aerial bombardments, it could have decimated Britians population

Also, Germany should have timed its invasion of Russia so that the winter wouldnt kill the invasion.

[enigma]

Believe they did do that, the go date was sometime in MAy was it not ... just overrun to june ... and the campaign overran too.


One should note the Material advantage of the Soviet Union to the Germans

up to and over 25000 tanks to the Germans 3300-5639
nearly 19000 aircraft to the Luftwaffes 2-3000 (as of Jan 42 they had just over 2000 planes available)
230-316 divisions to German ~3 million men plus allies


2000 aircraft lost within the first day it would seem, and a steady rate of loss following that.
The Russian tank fleet was decimated, most lost however due to lack of fuel, no spare parts etc ... the majoirty of it was out of date.

For examples of some of the POW losses

Uman - 100 000 surrender
Minsk - 15 divisions surrender (300 000?)
Smolensk - 300 000 surrender
Kiev - 650,000 Russian captured
Kharkov - "nets another Soviet Army Group"




At the end of 1941, Hitler was left wondering what was holding the Red Army together. The Russians had lost 3 million soldiers (its entire strength at the start of the war.) Fully half of its economic base was in German hands. But Russia was still strong. It had 9 million men of military age left, (enough for 400 divisions) and produced 4500 new tanks over the winter. Germany could not match either of these numbers. A sustained battle of attrition strongly favored Russia.

So by '42 they still had more tanks, possibly more planes and still more men ...

[EvilHobo]

There was the Russian Army of Liberation, but that never came in to being until it was too late; were it to happen, say, in 1942 or late '41 with men culled from POW camps, that would have given Germany that extra boost to manpower that it needed. The worry of course was, do we want to arm our enemies?

[PF-Kenny]

Believe they did do that, the go date was sometime in MAy was it not ... just overrun to june ... and the campaign overran too.


One should note the Material advantage of the Soviet Union to the Germans

up to and over 25000 tanks to the Germans 3300-5639
nearly 19000 aircraft to the Luftwaffes 2-3000 (as of Jan 42 they had just over 2000 planes available)
230-316 divisions to German ~3 million men plus allies


2000 aircraft lost within the first day it would seem, and a steady rate of loss following that.
The Russian tank fleet was decimated, most lost however due to lack of fuel, no spare parts etc ... the majoirty of it was out of date.

For examples of some of the POW losses

Uman - 100 000 surrender
Minsk - 15 divisions surrender (300 000?)
Smolensk - 300 000 surrender
Kiev - 650,000 Russian captured
Kharkov - "nets another Soviet Army Group"





So by '42 they still had more tanks, possibly more planes and still more men ...

oh but you miss the point of my post :p if the popular opinion was on the side of the Germans, the Soviets wouldnt have had those 9 million people left

[enigma]

There was the Russian Army of Liberation, but that never came in to being until it was too late; were it to happen, say, in 1942 or late '41 with men culled from POW camps, that would have given Germany that extra boost to manpower that it needed. The worry of course was, do we want to arm our enemies?


What about all those thousands of Hiwis?

[biggles]

Well.....I do know that the Wermacht "recrutied" soldiers from former enemies. They had "Frikorps Danmark", "Norske legion" and "Regiment Nordland" (waffen-SS, Scandinavia, and I'm not proud of it:( )

Anyway, they did organize some russian troops to german solders didn't they? Sended some of them to Normandie, if I can remember.....

[deathknight]

Stated. The Russians did want to help the Germans to rid Russia of Stalinism, many would come out to bring Germans food; Guderian's memoirs mention a Russian having made eggs for him. It's a terrible thing what happened to the Russian people, as that ideological racial viewpoint expressed by the Nazi government led to the suffering of the Russian people and later the German people by not destroying communism outright, using the resources at hand, i.e., Soviet citizens.

A shame, really.

I did not know the russians were so kind to the germans. From historical accounts i've heard, there was great enmity between the two peoples. I guess you learn something new every day lol. But wouldn't the germans eventually have just angered the russians with their maltreatment and caused them to rebel?

[enigma]

I did not know the russians were so kind to the germans. From historical accounts i've heard, there was great enmity between the two peoples. I guess you learn something new every day lol. But wouldn't the germans eventually have just angered the russians with their maltreatment and caused them to rebel?

Well there was thousands of Hiwis, believe they where Soviets who defected and pows etc who served as auxilaries and am sure ive seen mention of them also been giving rifles.

There was the Ost battalions, again i believe they where POWs who had been recruited and sent to man the Atlantic wall in some sectors.

For the Hiwis and the POWs there would be no salvation ... they where considered (and in some cases ... as in the hiwis rightly so) traitors. There would be little redemption for them (for example 50 000 iirc fought in Stalingrad with 6.armee)

After reading Berlin: The Downfall by Ant Beevor ... POW camps which where liberated, some of the POWs where packed off back to the union ... to labour camps, siberia etc .... while others where thrown back into the army and used as cannon fodder (although ive only ever seen these 2 events ever mentioned in that book).

There was many Militias etc iirc that served along side or in the rear areas aiding the German army ... iirc Ukrainies, Lativans etc

Although as you have quite right said ... there was also partisans. Soviet troops caught behind enemy lines to people of the local population etc

[Cias]

I did not know the russians were so kind to the germans. From historical accounts i've heard, there was great enmity between the two peoples. I guess you learn something new every day lol. But wouldn't the germans eventually have just angered the russians with their maltreatment and caused them to rebel?

speaking of kindness towards enemies i saw an interesting show on the history channel about ww1 and how on some of the fronts the brits and germans did not want to fight and actually sat down and ate dinner with each other frequently. there was one recorded case of the germans throwing a rock with a note saying we are being forced to shell your position, we dont want to and will blow a whistle when we are about to fire, please take cover. so honestly i wouldnt doubt if there was even more cases of this in ww2

[enigma]

speaking of kindness towards enemies i saw an interesting show on the history channel about ww1 and how on some of the fronts the brits and germans did not want to fight and actually sat down and ate dinner with each other frequently. there was one recorded case of the germans throwing a rock with a note saying we are being forced to shell your position, we dont want to and will blow a whistle when we are about to fire, please take cover. so honestly i wouldnt doubt if there was even more cases of this in ww2

there are quite alot of these type of stories between the British and the Germans in the desert which am aware of.
Between Ivan and the Germans ... the fighting troops am aware of little mercy although that could be the wrong approach to take.
As for the Japanese, in William Silms words, "no mercy was given and none was expected".

Anyhoo,
1 example would be, a British fightbomber came across iirc Von Lucks HQ, went to make a pass on a radio truck but didnt fire .. tipping his wings or something like that ...signalling to the people to clear the truck.
They took off, the pilot circled around for a 2nd pass and rippled the truck to bits.

Between the recon elements on the southern flank of the British and German lines, there seems to be a ceasefire every evening, trading of pows for supplies etc etc

There was some guy who was a RAF pilot during the battle of Britain, he was reaccounting his memories of his first flight iirc.
He got on the 6 of a BF109 and let rip on it, he stated after a while he couldnt bare to fire no more, flew along side motioned to this Luftwaffe pilot and then flew off :eek:

[BlackDragon]

Hypothetically speaking yes he could have. If he hadn't done one thing attacked Russia in the winter during the 43 campaign. He should have dug in and sat there. 2nd possibility is to have waited to attack Russia. What many people don't know is they had jet aircraft near the end of the war while we had none. If they would have waited and had more of these it would have been certain doom for us. THe other is the ATOM bomb if they were allowed to develop this super weapon it would have given Hitler even more leverage. However, i forget who said something about the Royal navy but if USA had maintained its Isolationism and had done the lend lease of 200 or 2000 destroyers i cant remember to Britain that were equipped with sonar then the Wolf packs would have had a fun time but in the end Royal navy out matched the Kriegsmarine because they relied too much on the wolfpacks and not enough actual ships. The others is Britain may be tough but germany almost had them because they could have only lasted another week if Germany kept on attacking :). As for the invasion the Germans weren't as anal in commanding infantry thus the reason why montgomery got his ass kicked a few times lol operation market garden. Lets see what else if ROMMEL wasn't such a dummy and published his book on tank warfare then they would have definitely won cause Patton would have been home reading greek war poetry. So if that hadn't happened then Hitler would have won.

[EvilHobo]

What do you mean shouldn't have attacked in the Winter in the '43 campaign? The winter counter-offensive against Kharkov was a feat of military genius. If you mean the summer offensive at Kursk, then that's another story.

Kursk should have begun earlier, in May or June, before the Soviets were granted time to build up their defenses considerably. Alternatively, Manstein's "backhand blow" plan would probably have worked better. Doing absolutely nothing and letting the Soviets take the initiative is the worst thing one could have done.

[BlackDragon]

I am referring to Stalingrad :). They got encircled and a whole Army Group was destroyed :D

[EvilHobo]

That was more of a '42 campaign, and they certainly weren't attacking in Stalingrad in '43.

[enigma]

However, i forget who said something about the Royal navy but if USA had maintained its Isolationism and had done the lend lease of 200 or 2000 destroyers i cant remember to Britain that were equipped with sonar then the Wolf packs would have had a fun time but in the end Royal navy out matched the Kriegsmarine because they relied too much on the wolfpacks and not enough actual ships.
Firstly, am not sure entirly what you meant here, but regardless it was 50 destroyers in exchange for bases in places such as the Bahamas etc (I may have said 100 or so destroyers before).
The deal was made on September 2, 1940:
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers_for_Bases_Agreement)

It would appear these "Town" Class destroyers where next to usless when it came to sub hunting, plus during this time i dont believe the German navy was operating "Wolfpacks".

As for ASDIC, it would appear that most British ships at the time had some form of this device on board, so 50 obsolete American destroyers would not have been the wonder weapon.

As for "actual ships", there convoy raiders and capital ships did play a decent part in the early stages attacking convoys and single ships.
However it would appear they where eventually hunted down and the capital ships for sure, destroyed.


The others is Britain may be tough but germany almost had them because they could have only lasted another week if Germany kept on attacking.
Attacking where? The RAF?


As for the invasion the Germans weren't as anal in commanding infantry thus the reason why montgomery got his ass kicked a few times lol operation market garden.
Monty lead the succesful invasion, also had a hand in quite alot of the planning of it too ... which beat back Rommels forces.
Monty had already beaten the German and Italian forces fair and square in Africa.
As for Market Garden, not his fault it went tits up ... it failed but it was a failure which was worth taking. If the tankers had gotten through to Arnhem in time, our boys would have been across the river and able to strike south into the Ruhr ... the war would have been over quicker.
As it is, it failed and the frontlines didnt change much for the next few months.


Lets see what else if ROMMEL wasn't such a dummy and published his book on tank warfare then they would have definitely won cause Patton would have been home reading greek war poetry.
Rommel released a book called "Infantry Attacks" after WW1 charting the history of his actions and what he thought was the best tactics as such, i do believe.

Rommels only other book i know of, is "The Rommel Papers" which is his diary, which was not published till after the war and via his son and others.

The book you seem to be talking about would be "Actung Panzer" which was released by Heinz Guderian during the 30s which, iirc is a dry read, covering the actions during WW1 where tanks fought. His thoughts on what tank country is and what could stop a tank attack dead, as well as stuff on combinded arms.
If Patton was reading this during the Winter of '44 and got insight on how to fight armoured warfare them am surprised he made the rank he did and was able to fight successful actions in Africa and Sciliy.

However since the book, was released to provide thoughts on modern doctrine it did not differ from articles an books released by other authors from countires such as Britain, also charting there thoughts on the use of this weapon and new thoughts on doctrines.
Example being Liddle Hart on indirect approach.


They got encircled and a whole Army Group was destroyed
not quite :p

[Pastrytarget]

If any one has read "stalingrad" even hitler's generals agreed that even if they drove the russian back to the Urals they still would of lost.

[enigma]

If any one has read "stalingrad" even hitler's generals agreed that even if they drove the russian back to the Urals they still would of lost.

Ant Beevors book? yea i have. It still doesnt change the fact that you can not factor out the Soviet Union in any 'could have Germany/Hitler etc won the war debates.
He wanted to take them on, he wanted the land ... and if he was not willing to strike first, Stalin would of.

Anyhoo, i think Stalin's Order #227 gives a good idea of what the situation is:

Some unwise people at the front comfort themselves with arguments that we can continue the retreat to the east, as we have vast territories, a lot of soil, many people, and that we will always have abundance of bread. By these arguments they try to justify their shameful behaviour at the front. But all these arguments are fully false, faked and working for our enemies.



The territory of the Soviet Union is not a wilderness, but people – workers, peasants, intelligentsia, our fathers and mothers, wives, brothers, children. Territory of USSR that has been captured by the enemy and which enemy is longing to capture is bread and other resources for the army and the civilians, iron and fuel for the industries, factories and plants that supply the military with hardware and ammo; this is also railroads. With loss of Ukraine, Belorussia, the Baltics, Donetsk basin and other areas we have lost vast territories, that means that we have lost many people, bread, metals, factories, and plants. We no longer have superiority over enemy in human resources and in bread supply. Continuation of retreat means to destroy us and also our Motherland. Every new piece of territory that we leave to the enemy will strengthen our enemy and weaken us, our defences, our Motherland.



This is why we have to eradicate the conversations that we can retreat without ending, that we have a lot of territory, that our country is great and rich, that we have a lot of population and we will always have enough bread. These conversations are false and harmful, as they weaken us and strengthen the enemy, for if we do not stop retreating, we will be left without bread, without fuel, without metals, without raw materials, without factories and plants, without railways.

The conclusion is that it is time to stop the retreat. Not a single step back! This should be our slogan from now.


Plus if they had chased them to the Urals or anywhere near them, they would be within bombing distance of the vast number of factories and again hamber the Soviet defence.

[biggles]

Perhaps we should think it like this: Could the AXIS win the war?
You see, what if Hitler himself was killed during one of the many assaults on his life, and someone else(Rommel maybe) would take over. How would the death of Adolf Hitler in the middle of the war chance the progress of the axis advance?

[DavidUpton]

Rommel would have ended it. The problem was that many of Hitler's generals has the foresight to see that the war was lost, but could do very little about it.

[biggles]

True.....but would Göring and Himmler want Rommel to do that?
The people of Germany would most likely say: YES, ROMMEL FOR PRESIDENT(hehe, well, not president,but you get the picture:D )

But I doubt that Himmler/Göring would think the same......

[harrisonmai]

Hitler wouldnt have ever started the war if he didnt think there was a possibility of winning it.
In the beginning stages of the war, Hitler caused so much terror on the world, he had millions of volunteers join his army. But why, if there was no possibility of winning? Well there was. Throughout the war, there were bad decisions made by the higher ups, that eventually leads to the downfall of the III Reich.

[biggles]

When did it turn for him anyway?

My guess: June 22nd, 1941:D

[enigma]

Rommel would not have became leader in the case of Hitlers downfall, there was enough cronies with support behind them to take such position and secure it.

As for a date the war turned for the worse agaisnt the Germans ... June 22nd 1941 was so not it ... that was the day they preceeded to destroy the Red Airforce and Army.

It would be my understanding that one of these dates would be better suited:
31st October, 1940,
April 6th, 1941,
Cant find a date so - sometime after the start of Barbarossa and the beginning of Operation Typhoon where units from AG Center where detached and given the AG South to take the ukraine,
March 15, 1943,
July 9, 1943,

Or to be absouluty sure: June 6 1944 and June 22, 1944 ;)

[harrisonmai]

Undoublty the winter of 1941-1942 was when the tide turned for the allies. Even though the worse hadent come yet, it was only the beginning. The winter had halted the german advance giving the Russians enough time to pull 40 spare divisions (which were used to halt any kind of japanese attack that would have came) and move them to the front. I would say that the germans didnt start realizing that they were actually going to lose the war until after the Retreat over the Don river.

The subject of when and how Hitler went wrong could be argued for hours, but the question of Hitler actually winning the war was without a doubt, YES.

[-X-Sublime]

The war could have been won early on at dunkirk england would have lost well over half a million men had hitler not stop his divisions from pushing into the sea and in north africa had rommel had enough supplies to couter the el alamein attack he could have pushed them back to the suez canal and as for russia instead of going strait for moscow had he gone south trough the caucuses into the middle east he would have then get almost unlimited amount of fuel and a good staging point agenst russia thats all i am saying

[enigma]

couple of things,

1 - Dunkirk - 338,226 British, French and i believe Belgium troops were resuced.

2- the Desert Campaign, El Alamien happened in 1942 ... it was after the "Pendulum of War" was broken.
Up until that point the war in the desert had swung back and forth due to supplies.
One side would attack and outrun his supply lines and then would be beaten etc.
At Gazala, Rommel captured alot of British stores and trucks to keep his army going for the push into Egypt ... getting around the Pendulum effect.

However his attack at El Alamien was halted, repeatly. The 1st Battle of El Alamien ended with the Panzerarmee Afrika halted, near enough stranded.

Supplies was not he main issue here, logistics was.
Italian quatermasters misloading transporters, Malta being in the way, allied aircraft and submarines striking the ports along the North African coast and the Axis shipping.
The slowly dwindling servicable trucks to bring supplies across a 1000 mile supply route is what stopped Rommel from carrying on.
more fuel was being used up transporting it.

The Luftwaffe helped by flying in some fuel, and the odd tanker which made it was able to supply Rommel with a fuel days worth of fuel but these attacks where halted.


Finally .... do you have any idea how impossible such a drive into the Soviet Union would have been?

[-X-Sublime]

Russia had most of its supplies come from its southern section hitlers whole idea of takeing stalingrad was the fact that it cut the volga north south this makeing an encirclement possible hitlers idea of holding the capital was conquering the country would not have worked for russia and rommel won at el alamein in terms of loss had he been able to take alexandria he would have had a major port city which would have made for easy resupply belive me it would have worked

[harrisonmai]

Sublime, ever heard of the little dots you put at the end of sentences? They are called periods... Seriously though, I can hardly understand what your trying to say.

[[BEF]-R!G4M0RT!Z]

Sublime, ever heard of the little dots you put at the end of sentences? They are called periods... Seriously though, I can hardly understand what your trying to say.

Actually they are full stops. Periods are to do with the Menstrual cycle. :D

[harrisonmai]

lol I was afraid someone was going to bring that up. :D

[enigma]

lmao :D

Ok to the point the other dude made that Jerry could of taken Alexandria would have went the war ....

heres a few questions and points i would like to see you address :)

Axis:

Terrible logistics and supplies, 1000 miles from main supply base, shipping under attack via air and sea, dodgy quartermasters.
Shipping kept going through Italy’s petrol crisis by draining fuel from there Fleet and getting it from the Germans.
Few reinforcements sent, took till the war in Africa was nearly over for large numbers to be sent
Italian infantry lacking in motorised vehicles and strength (after the hammering they took during the 1st battle of el alamien)
3-4 German divisions which had the capacity to fight a mobile war, and they are not exactly up to full strength.
How would Alexandria save the supply and logistics situation and allow for a drive towards Basra and Iran?


Allies:


What about the 8th Army and the 10th Army? Would they not be able to stop such a drive from so few men? The 8th Army had evolved from the one, which was crushed at Gazala. It had learnt many lessons.
Practically sitting on their supply base, thus smaller logistics needed, supplied via sea from the UK, India and USA as well as vehicles etc built in the Middle East and Egypt.
Massive material reinforcements sent to replace 8th Army losses as well as reinforcements sent, before, during and after the 2nd Battle of El Alamien.
Several brigades where moved off the front line and back into Egypt, around Alexandria and Cairo due them not being as motorised, as the Generals would have liked, thus equalling a fighting reserve.
What about The Mediterranean Fleet?


Overall:


Would have the capture of Alexandria, Basra and southern Iran by the remains of Panzerarmee Afrika actually won the war for the Germans considering the lend lease was also going in through northern ports, could possibly go in via other routes and that it was a rather low percentage of the Soviet material usage, according to charts and stats I have seen and read (yes I do realise that the lend lease was a massive amount of material but still).



As for Stalingrad, Army Group South was split into 2, one half went for a push on the volga and bypass the city while the other half headed south for the mountains and the oil fields in the Caucasus.

Hitler ordered the taking of Stalingrad for the sole reason of taking the city named after Stalin.
One should note that the push south into the Casucasus was halted in September '42 the Germans could not get any further then the gain they had made and where then slowly pushed back.

After the first battle of El Alamein where the Germans where halted, they tried again ... Enigma intercepts gave us the time and place of the assult ... thus the Battle of Alam el Halfa... in which the Germans advanced 5 miles ... there supplies became worse and they lost more iraplaceable men.
By the time the 2nd battle had came around, there was more men facing the German army, more equipment etc etc etc

How was this supose linkup (which was envisioned by Rommel but as far as am aware never planned) with the stalled German forces still inside Russia and about 400+ (if you go by the statement they where halted near the town of Mozdok, which would appear to by a bit north of Chechnya) miles from there intended object which was the oilfields inside Azerbaijan?

[Vladlen1986]

Идет Россия!

But, I think Hitler could have done it. Of course he rolled over France and Poland without even breaking a sweat (face is France and Poland's military might as well suit up in a tortilla and use forks as weapons, they already fly paper airplanes for Christ sakes) but England and the U.S.A together could be a struggle. But through logic and reasoning, I think he could have done it.