Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could Germany have won WWII

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

  • "5 Killing Russia poeple (They would of joined him in the fight agisant Stalin but he had to go and kill them making them mad)"

    Originally the Nazis were greeted in Russia as liberators. HUGE mistake alienating the Russian population as they did.

    HUGE mistake.

    Comment


    • I agree with the OoE. I really cant see Sealion workin the Germans did not possess the industry to produse such a fleet. Plus the types of landing boats that the US had the Germans did not. Do you also really think that Germany can also keep something that big a secret long enough? Though there are soe ways also that I think it could have also worked, but how many U-boats did Hitler have at the time of November 1940?
      The conquerer mourns, the conquerer is undone.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by M21Sniper
        Originally the Nazis were greeted in Russia as liberators.
        !!!
        Please, share the source of such valubale information.

        "Greeted in Russia as liberators". In West Ukraine - yes, in glorius Latvia - yes.

        Russia? There were traitors-polizae, and quite a lot. But nothing more.
        Last edited by Prosto ILya; 26 Feb 05,, 20:44.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Prosto ILya
          !!!
          Please, share the source of such valubale information.

          "Greeted in Russia as liberators". In West Ukraine - yes, in glorius Latvia - yes.

          Russia? There were traitors-polizae, and quite a lot. But nothing more.
          Correct. However, remember that minorites in what was the Soviet Empire formed a large portion of the population, so a good portion of the "Soviet" people did support German liberation initially. I think that this is where using "Soviet" and "Russian" interchangably has it's drawbacks in confusing people.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Longshot
            1 attacking an enemy before finishing one off (Britain/Russia)
            2 not listening to his generals (Now thats just stupid)

            I agree with several of your points, but these two I must disagree with. Germany had to fight England first, but there really wasn't a way for Germany to finish England off. And Hitler had to turn on Russia before the Soviets stabbed him in the back, because otherwise Stalin would have had the initiative when the war in the east started, and that would have been very bad for Germany.

            As for listening to his generals, in some instances he should of, and in others he was right not to. You are correct in your assertion that a mobile defense would have served Germany far better in Russia than fighting from fixed positions, which is what Hitler tried to do. There were other instances where incredibly stupid actions were performed under his orders (like sending 250,000 soldiers to Tunisia, just in time for them to get captured, or forbidding the Sixth Army and Fourth Panzer Army from trying to break out at Stalingrad). However, Hitler knew that Manstein was correct in his assertion that the best battle plan for the western front was a breakthrough through the Ardennes forest, and pushed that plan forward. He was also correct in overriding Gudarian during operation Barbarossa. When Gudarian wanted to press on to Moscow while ignoring the huge Soviet armies on his southern flank, Hitler forbade this, and ordered the initiation of the huge encirclement battles of the Ukraine. While this prevented the capture of Moscow (by using too much time), it also prevented the encirclement and destruction of Army Group Center by the Soviet armies in the Ukraine (worst case scenario for the Germans).

            Comment


            • [bold]Allied Mistakes[/bold]

              Poland France UK Poland and the Other Low Countries had the opportunity of a combined premptive strike that Germany is recognised as not being capable at that time of defending. Probably the biggest mistake of the war.

              Secondly the British army weas woefully manned, inadequatey trained and equiped, priority had been given to the RAF and even into the mid and late 30's the British Army was very under financed. Another big mistake!

              The early progress made by Germany was one of the divide and conquer. Rapid strike thrust and this needed to be countered. Germany fought very well all through the war, but it took the allies along time to counter the tactics and build the forces and equipments and no doubt tactics were behind the Germans.

              I would never belittle the sacrifice of the USSR, and the huge effort put into defeating the Germans, but I'd be aware of Stalinist propaganda. As for the lack of Action by the Allies, well Africa, Italy the Far East proecting your important areas buidling strength and experience.

              I beleive supllies to the USSR were made through Persia Iraq, no doubt defending Africa and the British Campaigns early in the war to secure Persia and the invasion of Italy in 1943 paid strategic dividends.

              Why was England not invaded, timelines. Obviously the USSR was moving to an all out war footing and needed to be defeated. Germany had limited resources and needed to deploy them according to plan based on threat.

              I am of the opinion that Germany did not have the experience or the resources to mount the operation and succeed, and the German navy and airforce would have been severely damaged. the RAF could have retreated out of of the South East area fairly easily this would hgave reduced reaction time but time and aircraft replacement was on the British side not the Germans. UK factoreis were focused on fighter production and the Commonwealth Training stream was up and working.

              [bold]Allied Mistakes[/bold]

              On the subject of Germany going nuclear, buidling sufficient working reactors to produce Uranium was a amjor issue. I read David Irvings book Recently on this subject and looked around a number of other sources including US declassified reports and my understanding was that Germany had made a huge mistake with reactor moderation and relying on heavy water and so I do not believe that Germany was very close at all.

              this is my first post, will provide ref if required!

              Davoj

              Comment


              • [bold]Allied Mistakes[/bold]

                Poland France UK Poland and the Other Low Countries had the opportunity of a combined premptive strike that Germany is recognised as not being capable at that time of defending. Probably the biggest mistake of the war.


                British Mistake
                Secondly the British army weas woefully manned, inadequatey trained and equiped, priority had been given to the RAF and even into the mid and late 30's the British Army was very under financed. Another big mistake!

                The Western Front
                Germany units fought very well all through the war, and it took the allies along time to counter the tactics and build the forces experience and equipment levels. Mounting an invasion over the channel into Normandy that's a big decision and failure would have set the allied effort back many years.

                I would never belittle the sacrifice of the USSR, and the huge effort put into defeating the Germans, but I'd be aware of Stalinist era propaganda. As for the lack of Action by the Allies, well Africa, Italy the Far East protecting important areas buidling strength and experience.

                I beleive supllies to the USSR were made through Persia, no doubt defending Africa and the British Campaigns early in the war to secure Persia and the invasion of Italy in 1943 paid strategic dividends.

                Invasion of the UK
                Why was England not invaded, timelines. Obviously the USSR was moving to an all out war footing and needed to be defeated. this would have been easier before full war footing was reached. Even Germany had resource limits and needed to deploy forces and resources according to plan based on threat.

                Britian would have swallowed alot of resources for what result? USSR was the bigger threat.

                I am of the opinion that Germany did not have the experience or the resources to mount the operation and succeed, and the German navy and airforce would have been severely damaged.

                The RAF could have retreated out of of the South East area fairly easily this would hgave reduced reaction time but time and aircraft replacement was on the British side not the Germans. UK factoreis were focused on fighter production and the Commonwealth Training stream was up and working. Simply the RAF won the war of attrition, no one wants to attrite themselves below a certain level.

                Nuclear

                On the subject of Germany going nuclear, buidling a working reactor to produce enriched Uranium was a major issue. Let alone enough to produce enpough bomb material one wopuld not have been enough.

                I read David Irvings book Recently on this subject and looked around a number of other sources including US declassified reports and my understanding was that Germany had made a huge mistake with reactor moderation and only using heavy water and so I do not believe that Germany was very close at all.

                this is my first post, will provide ref if required!

                Davoj

                Comment


                • Even i think that destroying the Soviet armies on the southern flank was better than just goin for Moscow, but if he would have just left the balkans alone(Yugoslavia, Greece) he would have had atleast another million men, many more tanks, and many more aircraft to help with conquering Russia and another month and a half earlier to launch before the oncoming winter.
                  The conquerer mourns, the conquerer is undone.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by stratadmir
                    Even i think that destroying the Soviet armies on the southern flank was better than just goin for Moscow, but if he would have just left the balkans alone(Yugoslavia, Greece) he would have had atleast another million men, many more tanks, and many more aircraft to help with conquering Russia and another month and a half earlier to launch before the oncoming winter.

                    He also would have allowed potential bases for British bombers to exist within easy striking distance to his oil supply (the Ploesti oil fields in Romania). That could have been a very crippling blow to Germany's war effort against the Soviets. Once Yugo had it's coup, and went from being pro-axis to pro-allied, I think that militarily Hitler made the right choice in securing his oil supply by taking Yugoslavia and Greece before waging the war in Russia.

                    Remember, Greece was already at war with Italy during 1940, and British bombers could reach Romania from there. And if the pro-Allied Yugoslavian government had joined the Allies once it saw Germany's back turned during Operation Barbarrossa, the writing would have been on the wall for the Axis, as it would have been a short march to Romania.
                    Last edited by lwarmonger; 27 Feb 05,, 22:21.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by davoj
                      [bold]Allied Mistakes[/bold]
                      The RAF could have retreated out of of the South East area fairly easily this would hgave reduced reaction time but time and aircraft replacement was on the British side not the Germans. UK factoreis were focused on fighter production and the Commonwealth Training stream was up and working. Simply the RAF won the war of attrition, no one wants to attrite themselves below a certain level.
                      ‘The Second World War’
                      by Winston Churchill,
                      published by Cassell & Co Ltd 1949
                      Vol II Chap. XVI pg 292 pp 2
                      “this same period (August 24-September 6) had seriously drained the strength of Fighter Command as a whole. The Command had lost in this fortnight 103 Pilots killed and 128 seriously wounded, while 466 Spitfires and Hurricanes had been destroyed or seriously damaged. Out of a total Pilot strength of about a thousand nearly a quarter had been lost. Their places could only be filled by 260 new, ardent, but inexperienced pilots drawn from training units, in many cases before their full courses were complete. The night attacks on London for ten days after September 7 struck at the London docks and railway centres, and killed and wounded many civilians, but they were in effect for us a breathing-space of which we had the utmost need.”
                      They were managing to keep supply of fighter aircraft but not trained pilots. There's a lot of descriptions by Al Deere, Douglas Bader, Pierre Cloistermann et al about taking up flights during this period and losing three or even four during each sortie. The Commonwealth training scheme didn't properly kick in until a matter of months later. Group 12 couldn't defend both the Midlands and the south of England, so they'd either have lost vital protection for industry or the ability to defend against invasion, which wether it would've worked or not, the British believed they had to defend against. Also, defending the south from Grp12 would not have just reduced reaction time, they'd have lost their early warning radar and their only other true advantage: air time.
                      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                      Leibniz

                      Comment


                      • I thought the governemtn in Yugoslavia was just indepent, not pro-allied. then if it was he could have tied up only one army group goin through bulgaria into greece and then the italiens through albania into greece
                        The conquerer mourns, the conquerer is undone.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lwarmonger
                          Absolutely correct. Hitler's mistake came not from invading Russia, but from not preparing for a two year campaign against Russia. The winter was a large part of what defeated Hitler, and a refusal to go to a full war footing contributed largely to his defeat as well. Germany was never really prepared for a long war until Speer's reforms began to take effect (1943), and by then it was too late to knock the Soviet Union out of the conflict.
                          I believe Hitler would have been better off seizing the Middle East and controlling the Med, not attacking the USSR in 1941. If Hitler had the Mid-East oil and the Mediteranean, it would be difficult for Britain to remain in the war.

                          In 1942, Stalin would be a fool to attack the Nazis, even with modernization. To plausibly attack Germany, Stalin would have to move his entire army to his western frontier, with almost no deep reserves. An attacking Soviet army would be slaughtered, far worse than WWI. The Soviet Union would be a walkover all the way to Moscow. Perhaps a Soviet Army (on offence) would have stood a chance if Stalin had not killed Tuchachevski and most of the senior officer Corps.

                          Also, I doubt Stalin would have attacked unless the Allies had already invaded France and were defeating the Germans, an unlikely prospect. Stalin was scared sh*tless of the German Army.
                          Last edited by Broken; 28 Feb 05,, 03:17.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Broken
                            I believe Hitler would have been better off seizing the Middle East and controlling the Med, not attacking the USSR in 1941. If Hitler had the Mid-East oil and the Mediteranean, it would be difficult for Britain to remain in the war.

                            In 1942, Stalin would be a fool to attack the Nazis, even with modernization. To plausibly attack Germany, Stalin would have to move his entire army to his western frontier, with almost no deep reserves. An attacking Soviet army would be slaughtered, far worse than WWI. The Soviet Union would be a walkover all the way to Moscow. Perhaps a Soviet Army (on offence) would have stood a chance if Stalin had not killed Tuchachevski and most of the senior officer Corps.

                            Also, I doubt Stalin would have attacked unless the Allies had already invaded France and were defeating the Germans, an unlikely prospect. Stalin was scared sh*tless of the German Army.
                            I think you're right. Stalin would never have attacked Germany in 1942. However, 1943 or 44 could have been very different stories. The point in time when force ratios were best for Germany was 1941. That was before most of the newer Russian tanks came into use (only some 700 T-34s by the time Barbarossa was initiated), and before the Soviet officer corp had time to recover. After that, Germany would have been increasingly strained holding down the Middle East (a logistically difficult campaign to begin with), and would have had to face a much better prepared USSR in the future.

                            Also, an attacking Soviet Army may have suffered severe damage, but I seriously doubt that it would have been destroyed. A big part of the reason that Germany did so well in those first two years was because they had the initiative. When the Germans stopped picking the time and place of battle (or had their options extremely limited), then the Soviet set-piece form of tactics worked much better. In a Soviet offensive during 1943-44, even a Germany with a much better position vis a vis Great Britian would have been hard pressed to win, unless internal collapse destroyed the Soviet Union.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by stratadmir
                              I thought the governemtn in Yugoslavia was just indepent, not pro-allied. then if it was he could have tied up only one army group goin through bulgaria into greece and then the italiens through albania into greece
                              The government was independant, but the coup occured when it appeared that Yugoslavia was going to join the axis, so it was a safe bet that Yugoslavia would join the Allies the second that Germany didn't have the force on hand to destroy them (ie was embroiled in Russia). Taken from Germany's perspective, the Yugoslavians were not to be trusted, since they were very pro-western.

                              Comment


                              • If the UsSR did attck Greater Germany in those years he could have left his east flank open and then the Japanese may have attacked. Plus Georgia Armenia Azerbijan Finland Latvia Lithuania Estonia Ukraine And Belarus may have joined in to attack the Russians
                                The conquerer mourns, the conquerer is undone.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X