Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What was the point of Hitler's project?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GVChamp,

    don't see how US gets into the war without Hitler declaring on the US.

    if Japan still attacks the US, then the entire US focus will be on eliminating japan. Europe-first as an idea was a relatively hard sell...and that was with Hitler declaring war on the US.

    isolationism was STRONG, and it would have political suicide for FDR to act otherwise. he tried -very- hard to start a fight.

    So you don't declare war on either, just hammer on Africa, and wait it out.
    and the Middle East, securing a good supply of oil in the process. advance troops to the Caucasus and not only do you have an incredibly strong defensive base of operations, a northward "Case Blue" would have been a lot easier.

    But Stalin is definitely going to attack you in the mean-time. He will see an opening and he will take it.
    he didn't plan on it until 1943-1944 at the earliest. IIRC he told his own troops back in 1940 that war was inevitable but that their diplomats would try to delay it, and that ideally they could delay it until 1943-1944...but to expect an attack earlier than that. well, he was right, but he was so surprised that it happened in 1941 that it paralyzed him for weeks.

    hitler could have easily seized north Africa and the ME by 1942 with even a quarter of the troops he planned for Barbarossa. the fall of Suez, let alone German troops into Baghdad, would have likely caused a serious political crisis in the UK, perhaps the fall of the Churchill government.

    Your only hope is that he hilariously bungles his offensives, and diverts most of his troops to the Dardanelles.
    likely at the start. the soviet record in 1941 and 1942 wasn't exactly glorious, and they had the easier job of being on the defensive.

    moreover if the Soviets begin an offensive war, they probably weren't going to see any Lend-Lease.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • Asty,
      I'm not sure I buy the US staying neutral. Just extrapolating the trend of escalating US involvement and looking at prior wars? I don't see it myself.
      So if the US stays out entirely, and Hitler takes the Middle East...well, he still needs to go against a nation almost twice his size with half a continent's worth of strategic depth with lend lease aid from the biggest industrial power on the planet. With his still crappy under-mobilized economy. That's a tough win...
      And god help Hitler if Stalin still penetrates the Manhattan Project!
      "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

      Comment


      • Originally posted by astralis View Post
        and the Middle East, securing a good supply of oil in the process. advance troops to the Caucasus and not only do you have an incredibly strong defensive base of operations, a northward "Case Blue" would have been a lot easier.

        hitler could have easily seized north Africa and the ME by 1942 with even a quarter of the troops he planned for Barbarossa. the fall of Suez, let alone German troops into Baghdad, would have likely caused a serious political crisis in the UK, perhaps the fall of the Churchill government.
        I've always been of the opinion that if Hitler had actually concentrated his forces in the southward invasion of Russia he would've been a lot more successful overall, forget about Moscow; it might've been a political victory to occupy Moscow but, considering the vastness of the Russian steppes and Hitler's relatively small forces, it would've made a lot more sense to orient the brunt of the attack toward the Caucasus/Ukraine, especially with the winter of '41-'42 right around the corner. Invade the Caucasus/Ukraine, secure the natural resources available in that region (particularly the POL), and build up forces to a.) link up with the DAK in Egypt/Palestine, and b.) push northward toward Stalingrad after the winter of '41-'42.
        Last edited by Stitch; 21 Feb 15,, 02:55. Reason: Tense
        "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

        Comment


        • GVChamp,

          I'm not sure I buy the US staying neutral. Just extrapolating the trend of escalating US involvement and looking at prior wars? I don't see it myself.
          conscription passed by ONE vote in 1940. i still can't see a US intervening without -hitler- first taking the bait and declaring war. even a delay in US involvement would have major ripple effects- for instance if the UK threw in the towel, then the US would certainly not have intervened at all.

          So if the US stays out entirely, and Hitler takes the Middle East...well, he still needs to go against a nation almost twice his size with half a continent's worth of strategic depth with lend lease aid from the biggest industrial power on the planet. With his still crappy under-mobilized economy. That's a tough win...
          hitler got close enough as it was. an extra 1.5-2.5 million troops, without the USAAF bombing the crap out of his transportation net and cities and wiping out the Luftwaffe, the mountain of supplies that went to fighting the Allies-- even things like not investing in the V2 rocket (which costed 50% MORE than the Manhattan Project, btw)...and if he invades the ME, again, he would be able to execute a dual-pronged attack and threaten, right away, the USSR southern oil fields.

          And god help Hitler if Stalin still penetrates the Manhattan Project!
          first USSR bomb was in 1949. the issue was going to be decided, one way or another, before then.

          worst case scenario for hitler is that the Red Army just barely manages to press him back to '39 borders...and hitler/mussolini still have north africa/suez/middle east, at least up to iraq/caucasus.

          in OTL WWII killed something along the lines of 25 million russians. this would have likely been worse, even if the russians managed to fight to a draw.

          the nightmare would be a three-sided Cold War where everyone has nukes. god.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • stitch,

            I've always been of the opinion that if Hitler had actually concentrated his forces in the southward invasion of Russia he would've been a lot more successful overall, forget about Moscow; it might've been a political victory to occupy Moscow but, considering the vastness of the Russian steppes and Hitler's relatively small forces, it would've made a lot more sense to orient the brunt of the attack toward the Caucasus/Ukraine, especially with the winter of '41-'42 right around the corner. Invade the Caucasus/Ukraine, secure the natural resources available in that region (particularly POL), and build up forces to a.) link up with the DAK in Egypt/Palestine, and b.) push northward toward Stalingrad after the winter of '41-'42.
            probably a wash, i'd think. Moscow was not just a political symbol but a major logistics hub. moreover if the Germans weren't advancing, the Soviets certainly would have.

            he didn't have the manpower to head down south to the Middle East like that by then.
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • Yeah, there was a strong isolationist wing, and strong opposition to the draft, but that's expected of an isolationist democracy like America. I think you really have to consider the inertia in this case, and the inertia is towards heavier involvement, escalating sanctions, etc. Plus you have an extremely strong executive who really wants to kill Germans. That's not to be under-stated.
              I think the big difference is that if you follow this trend, America declares war at, say, 60% supporting the war, and that's not enough. Japan really bumped the whole thing to 99% supporting the war overnight, and at that point it's all over but the crying.
              Just how I'm seeing it from my end.

              Okay, but no US involvement directly. I am not a war-game expert, but thinking this out. Germany crushes Britain in the Middle East in 1941. Even so, that doesn't stop Britain from re-entering the conflict in the future, even if she's out NOW. Old European style coalitions of the moment. If the Germans hit the Soviets hard in 1943, they STILL aren't going to take Moscow (they run into the same logistical problems as before), and even if they do, they still aren't knocking the USSR out of the war entirely. The USSR still gets a lot of lend-lease aid and the Germans are still really overstretched and they're still going to take losses. I don't think they can ever really knock Stalin out totally, and once the battle starts going sour, Britain will probably re-enter the war. Eventually Germany starts running out of Germans.

              I could definitely see Germany gaining ground and influence out of this war, but they aren't going to get a Third Reich, and I don't see a reason this can't last longer than the 7 years war (bringing well us into the early 50s before resolution).

              As for Cold War...I don't see a very long Cold War between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It's all down to who recovers faster and who gets more nukes made in the 5-10 year armistice. I really see Europe just becoming a radioactive shit-hole that marauding Muslims take over by 1980, which at least means I don't have to hear your party whining about European healthcare every 10 minutes :P
              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

              Comment


              • Why would Germany and USSR nuke each other to oblivion is beyond me.
                They had WMD in WW2.They had chemical weapons.Yet they were never used.
                Those who know don't speak
                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                Comment


                • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                  GVChamp,



                  moreover if the Soviets begin an offensive war, they probably weren't going to see any Lend-Lease.
                  They don't need it.They have plenty of trucks,guns, ammo and comms by 1941.And the industry is working 24/7,without any disruptions,like being moved to the Urals or having a lil' fighting just outside.
                  Those who know don't speak
                  He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                    Why would Germany and USSR nuke each other to oblivion is beyond me.
                    They had WMD in WW2.They had chemical weapons.Yet they were never used.
                    Because it would have been so new. No one was revolted by them at the time. We used chems during WWI because we thought they would have been effective. We were not repulsed by them until way, way later. We were not repulsed by Hiroshima and Nagasaki until we saw the pictures afterwards.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • Nuking a couple of cities isn't the end of the world.
                      Those who know don't speak
                      He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                      Comment


                      • Add in the bloodlust between Stalin and Hitler.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • They're dead by early 50's.
                          Those who know don't speak
                          He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                          Comment


                          • Fine. Switch to the blood lust between the Soviets and the Germans.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • End of the world? No. But the Soviets and Germans are going to spend the decade between 1947 and 1957 stockpiling enough conventional weapons to kill all of China, and still have small nuclear arsenals. If the war starts in the early 1960s, both sides have multi-stage hydrogen bombs and a lot of ballistic missiles. Either way, it's the end of at least Eastern Europe.
                              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                              Comment


                              • Hitler wouldn't have nuked Eastern Europe. Completely contrary to the Blut und Boden theories the Nazis adhered to.

                                Now, Moscow and London though...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X