![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Hitler lost the war because he picked a fight with 3 economic titans, 2 of which were practically on his borders.
|
|
Quoted: Personally I think Hitler doomed himself on the eastern front. It’s been awhile since I’ve done much reading but I THINK between him delaying the invasion AND stopping the advance of the panzer divisions to allow everyone to catch up it allowed the Russian winter to set in and Moscow time to dig in. What he didn’t know was basically nothing stood in his way between the front line and Moscow. Even though the Germans did make it to the outskirts once the cold arrived it basically shut everything down. Ultimately because of this he couldn’t reach the factories further East with his bombers allowing the Soviets to get their shit together, produce a few tanks, planes etc.. Hitler lost WW2 because he didn’t listen to his generals. Another example was the placement of their armor leading up to D-Day. Him deciding to keep the armor in the rear and calling them up after the fact, instead of closer to the beach probably allowed the invasion to succeed. All just my opinion of course. View Quote Hitler didn't trust his generals, because they botched the planning and execution of the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hard as it is to hear (and to say), Hitler had a much better appreciation of the strategic situation in the East at the start of the war than did the German military staff. Hitler's vision for the invasion of the Soviet Union involved the early seizure of the oil fields, because Germany in 1941 lacked the oil to supply the economy and military just to maintain the areas it had already taken. The German military staff, skilled as they were in the tactical and operational levels of warfare, had little appreciation for the strategic goals of the campaign, and deliberately allocated less forces to the oil campaign because they believed the war would be won by a drive on the capital, much like it was in France, and completely ignored the fact that Napoleon tried the same thing and lost his army even AFTER successfully capturing Moscow. Capturing Moscow would have done nothing to provide Germany with the oil it needed to run its economy. Was Hitler a paranoid micromanager? Sure, especially later in the war (although in his defense, his generals DID try to kill him at least once). Operation Watch on the Rhine (leading to the Battle of the Bulge) was an unrealistic plan with little or no chance of success, but even then, the staff that planned it really didn't expect or plan the operation through to its intended conclusion. The German war machine lost its war for several reasons, and no one reason "cost them the war." Germany wouldn't have won the war if Hitler listened to his generals, because those generals were unable to grasp the STRATEGIC requirements of the nation and orient their plans and operations to attain them. On the other hand, even though Hitler had a better grasp of the strategic requirements, he failed to see that Germany simply was not in a position to carry out its strategic goals against the opposition against them. Germany's early successes were completely due to the unwillingness of the other European nations to recognize that war was required to stop Germany's aggression (the Sudetenland, annexation of Czechoslovakia, etc) and their general unpreparedness once it was finally forced upon them. Germany's requirements were such that they simply could not be satisfied before the other nations came to a full war footing, and Germany's position was such that they would never be able to defeat their opponents once that happened. The conflicts between Hitler and his generals certainly didn't HELP Germany during the war, but since they were never in a position that would have allowed them to win the war they picked anyway, it certainly didn't COST them the war. Mike |
|
Quoted: Hence - his alliance with Japan. Had he solidified control over his reich instead of attacking Russia, he might have preserved the opportunity for a joint Japanese/German attack on Russia on 2 fronts. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Living space was just an early goal, world domination is what he was after. . . Hence - his alliance with Japan. Had he solidified control over his reich instead of attacking Russia, he might have preserved the opportunity for a joint Japanese/German attack on Russia on 2 fronts. I think a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union would have been logistically impossible. At worst, they could have drawn forces east to defend the few ports. |
|
In no particular order...
Attacking Great Britain Declaring war on the USA Bailing out the Italians in Africa. Failing to have sufficient numbers of U-boats. Invading Norway. Invading the USSR. Failing to develop strategic bombers. |
|
Quoted: In no particular order... Attacking Great Britain Declaring war on the USA Bailing out the Italians in Africa. Failing to have sufficient numbers of U-boats. Invading Norway. Invading the USSR. Failing to develop strategic bombers. View Quote not being fully mechanized not developing/finishing aircraft carriers |
|
Quoted: Hitler lost because he was a dumb ass Nazi plain and simple. Had the just wanted land and weren't governed by their shitty ideas they may have "won." Here's Dan Carlin's take on it: ![]() View Quote Crazy and overzealous yes, dumb ass no. He managed to take over a country through rhetoric and policy while sacking most of Western Europe in the process. It's a terrifying history lesson that the world should never forget. |
|
Quoted: He was an egotistical micromanager. He went off on tangents like an ADD kid. He should have not invaded Russia nor attacked England and sued for peace after gaining control of mainland Europe View Quote This, it wouldn't have been sustainable and his empire though would have eventually crumbled either way. The 2nd half of the 20th century would have looked very different in Europe though. |
|
Hitler's time in Landsberg would have been better spent with a map and reading a German translation of War and Peace instead of writing Mein Kaumph
|
|
Quoted: This, it wouldn't have been sustainable and his empire though would have eventually crumbled either way. The 2nd half of the 20th century would have looked very different in Europe though. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: He was an egotistical micromanager. He went off on tangents like an ADD kid. He should have not invaded Russia nor attacked England and sued for peace after gaining control of mainland Europe This, it wouldn't have been sustainable and his empire though would have eventually crumbled either way. The 2nd half of the 20th century would have looked very different in Europe though. this could be said of any tyrant. |
|
Quoted: Russia was going to smoke the Germans one way or the other. Being a Nazi retard did affect how poorly the Germans did but the outcome wouldn't have changed even if they'd have chilled out after absorbing Austria. Imagine how different the world would be if we would've had to prop up German Nationalists to keep France from falling to the Russians. Crazy. View Quote That would make for a bad ass sci fi series. |
|
Quoted: The purpose of the Treaty of Versailles was to make sure WW1 continued at a later date. View Quote Well, that simply isn’t true. That may have been its effect, but not its purpose. The problem with its purpose is that it was written by lots of people who all wanted different things and couldn’t agree. Wilson wanted his Fourteen Points, which the Germans seized upon as salvation when they agreed to sign the Armistice. France wanted Germany held down forever and a military alliance against Germany in the future, not that I blame them. England and France wanted to carve up Germany’s colonies, Wilson wanted to end colonialism. England and France had lost millions of men and wanted some form of reparation. Belgium and been blown into pieces but wasn’t even included at the big table. Wilson wanted to re-draw the map of Europe to ensure ethno-linguistic harmony, that proved to be impossible. It was a Gordian knot. |
|
Quoted: Hitler didn't trust his generals, because they botched the planning and execution of the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hard as it is to hear (and to say), Hitler had a much better appreciation of the strategic situation in the East at the start of the war than did the German military staff. Hitler's vision for the invasion of the Soviet Union involved the early seizure of the oil fields, because Germany in 1941 lacked the oil to supply the economy and military just to maintain the areas it had already taken. The German military staff, skilled as they were in the tactical and operational levels of warfare, had little appreciation for the strategic goals of the campaign, and deliberately allocated less forces to the oil campaign because they believed the war would be won by a drive on the capital, much like it was in France, and completely ignored the fact that Napoleon tried the same thing and lost his army even AFTER successfully capturing Moscow. Capturing Moscow would have done nothing to provide Germany with the oil it needed to run its economy. Was Hitler a paranoid micromanager? Sure, especially later in the war (although in his defense, his generals DID try to kill him at least once). Operation Watch on the Rhine (leading to the Battle of the Bulge) was an unrealistic plan with little or no chance of success, but even then, the staff that planned it really didn't expect or plan the operation through to its intended conclusion. The German war machine lost its war for several reasons, and no one reason "cost them the war." Germany wouldn't have won the war if Hitler listened to his generals, because those generals were unable to grasp the STRATEGIC requirements of the nation and orient their plans and operations to attain them. On the other hand, even though Hitler had a better grasp of the strategic requirements, he failed to see that Germany simply was not in a position to carry out its strategic goals against the opposition against them. Germany's early successes were completely due to the unwillingness of the other European nations to recognize that war was required to stop Germany's aggression (the Sudetenland, annexation of Czechoslovakia, etc) and their general unpreparedness once it was finally forced upon them. Germany's requirements were such that they simply could not be satisfied before the other nations came to a full war footing, and Germany's position was such that they would never be able to defeat their opponents once that happened. The conflicts between Hitler and his generals certainly didn't HELP Germany during the war, but since they were never in a position that would have allowed them to win the war they picked anyway, it certainly didn't COST them the war. Mike Mike View Quote I sort of agree/disagree. I completely agree that Germany underestimated their oil needs by thinking it would all be over quickly. The success they had in Western Europe didn’t help, Mussolini getting them involved in North Africa, a greater priority on Moscow over the oil fields to the south all helped doom Hitler. That said, Hitler calling a halt to the advancement into Russia screwed them. They lost what, 6 weeks? It gave the Soviet’s time to catch their breath, restock and dig in. By the time Germany got rolling again it was too late. Winter was on its way and Russia had too much time over the winter to get prepared and the factories moved/up and running in the East. Had Hitler not called a stop nothing lay in their way to Moscow, nor on to the East. Taking Moscow would have put those factories within range of his bombers. The defeat in Russia, for either side, depended on who controlled Moscow over that first winter, imo. Had they rolled on into Moscow and pushed the soviets out nothing would have stopped Germany from linking up with Rommel in NA and taking the oil fields. |
|
Quoted: The “National Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself. Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety. View Quote Any socialism in the Nazi party died with Ernst Röhm. |
|
Quoted: I think a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union would have been logistically impossible. At worst, they could have drawn forces east to defend the few ports. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Living space was just an early goal, world domination is what he was after. . . Hence - his alliance with Japan. Had he solidified control over his reich instead of attacking Russia, he might have preserved the opportunity for a joint Japanese/German attack on Russia on 2 fronts. I think a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union would have been logistically impossible. At worst, they could have drawn forces east to defend the few ports. that would have been enough to keep Stalin from flinging dozens of Siberian divisions at the Germans in the winter of 1941-42. |
|
Don't start war with the USSR in the short term, consolidate gains on the European continent and build even larger. Also get Japan to sue for peace with the US and not attack Pearl Harbor. Build nuclear weapons, jets, ect. Then attack the USSR with a lightning strike, including using said nuke on Moscow, and Japan driving in to the far East. Make it be seen that you are wiping the "scourge" of Communism off the face of the planet, which hopefully causes the UK and US to stay neutral.
|
|
Quoted: I sort of agree/disagree. I completely agree that Germany underestimated their oil needs by thinking it would all be over quickly. The success they had in Western Europe didn’t help, Mussolini getting them involved in North Africa, a greater priority on Moscow over the oil fields to the south all helped doom Hitler. That said, Hitler calling a halt to the advancement into Russia screwed them. They lost what, 6 weeks? It gave the Soviet’s time to catch their breath, restock and dig in. By the time Germany got rolling again it was too late. Winter was on its way and Russia had too much time over the winter to get prepared and the factories moved/up and running in the East. Had Hitler not called a stop nothing lay in their way to Moscow, nor on to the East. Taking Moscow would have put those factories within range of his bombers. The defeat in Russia, for either side, depended on who controlled Moscow over that first winter, imo. Had they rolled on into Moscow and pushed the soviets out nothing would have stopped Germany from linking up with Rommel in NA and taking the oil fields. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Hitler didn't trust his generals, because they botched the planning and execution of the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hard as it is to hear (and to say), Hitler had a much better appreciation of the strategic situation in the East at the start of the war than did the German military staff. Hitler's vision for the invasion of the Soviet Union involved the early seizure of the oil fields, because Germany in 1941 lacked the oil to supply the economy and military just to maintain the areas it had already taken. The German military staff, skilled as they were in the tactical and operational levels of warfare, had little appreciation for the strategic goals of the campaign, and deliberately allocated less forces to the oil campaign because they believed the war would be won by a drive on the capital, much like it was in France, and completely ignored the fact that Napoleon tried the same thing and lost his army even AFTER successfully capturing Moscow. Capturing Moscow would have done nothing to provide Germany with the oil it needed to run its economy. Was Hitler a paranoid micromanager? Sure, especially later in the war (although in his defense, his generals DID try to kill him at least once). Operation Watch on the Rhine (leading to the Battle of the Bulge) was an unrealistic plan with little or no chance of success, but even then, the staff that planned it really didn't expect or plan the operation through to its intended conclusion. The German war machine lost its war for several reasons, and no one reason "cost them the war." Germany wouldn't have won the war if Hitler listened to his generals, because those generals were unable to grasp the STRATEGIC requirements of the nation and orient their plans and operations to attain them. On the other hand, even though Hitler had a better grasp of the strategic requirements, he failed to see that Germany simply was not in a position to carry out its strategic goals against the opposition against them. Germany's early successes were completely due to the unwillingness of the other European nations to recognize that war was required to stop Germany's aggression (the Sudetenland, annexation of Czechoslovakia, etc) and their general unpreparedness once it was finally forced upon them. Germany's requirements were such that they simply could not be satisfied before the other nations came to a full war footing, and Germany's position was such that they would never be able to defeat their opponents once that happened. The conflicts between Hitler and his generals certainly didn't HELP Germany during the war, but since they were never in a position that would have allowed them to win the war they picked anyway, it certainly didn't COST them the war. Mike Mike I sort of agree/disagree. I completely agree that Germany underestimated their oil needs by thinking it would all be over quickly. The success they had in Western Europe didn’t help, Mussolini getting them involved in North Africa, a greater priority on Moscow over the oil fields to the south all helped doom Hitler. That said, Hitler calling a halt to the advancement into Russia screwed them. They lost what, 6 weeks? It gave the Soviet’s time to catch their breath, restock and dig in. By the time Germany got rolling again it was too late. Winter was on its way and Russia had too much time over the winter to get prepared and the factories moved/up and running in the East. Had Hitler not called a stop nothing lay in their way to Moscow, nor on to the East. Taking Moscow would have put those factories within range of his bombers. The defeat in Russia, for either side, depended on who controlled Moscow over that first winter, imo. Had they rolled on into Moscow and pushed the soviets out nothing would have stopped Germany from linking up with Rommel in NA and taking the oil fields. They had to stop to let logistics catch up. They were out of ammo food and replacement parts. They didn't even give them preps from winter occupation/ conquest. Clothes. Oil. Lubricants. And they were pretty much exhausted as well. There were some mighty fine points that helped with their overall fail, but I still have a desire that they played it out a bit better so more on both sides died. Commies and Nazis. |
|
Quoted: Any socialism in the Nazi party died with Ernst Röhm. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The “National Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself. Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety. Any socialism in the Nazi party died with Ernst Röhm. And Strasser. Died around the same time. But so did monarchists and even other SS. |
|
Quoted: I sort of agree/disagree. I completely agree that Germany underestimated their oil needs by thinking it would all be over quickly. The success they had in Western Europe didn’t help, Mussolini getting them involved in North Africa, a greater priority on Moscow over the oil fields to the south all helped doom Hitler. That said, Hitler calling a halt to the advancement into Russia screwed them. They lost what, 6 weeks? It gave the Soviet’s time to catch their breath, restock and dig in. By the time Germany got rolling again it was too late. Winter was on its way and Russia had too much time over the winter to get prepared and the factories moved/up and running in the East. Had Hitler not called a stop nothing lay in their way to Moscow, nor on to the East. Taking Moscow would have put those factories within range of his bombers. The defeat in Russia, for either side, depended on who controlled Moscow over that first winter, imo. Had they rolled on into Moscow and pushed the soviets out nothing would have stopped Germany from linking up with Rommel in NA and taking the oil fields. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Hitler didn't trust his generals, because they botched the planning and execution of the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hard as it is to hear (and to say), Hitler had a much better appreciation of the strategic situation in the East at the start of the war than did the German military staff. Hitler's vision for the invasion of the Soviet Union involved the early seizure of the oil fields, because Germany in 1941 lacked the oil to supply the economy and military just to maintain the areas it had already taken. The German military staff, skilled as they were in the tactical and operational levels of warfare, had little appreciation for the strategic goals of the campaign, and deliberately allocated less forces to the oil campaign because they believed the war would be won by a drive on the capital, much like it was in France, and completely ignored the fact that Napoleon tried the same thing and lost his army even AFTER successfully capturing Moscow. Capturing Moscow would have done nothing to provide Germany with the oil it needed to run its economy. Was Hitler a paranoid micromanager? Sure, especially later in the war (although in his defense, his generals DID try to kill him at least once). Operation Watch on the Rhine (leading to the Battle of the Bulge) was an unrealistic plan with little or no chance of success, but even then, the staff that planned it really didn't expect or plan the operation through to its intended conclusion. The German war machine lost its war for several reasons, and no one reason "cost them the war." Germany wouldn't have won the war if Hitler listened to his generals, because those generals were unable to grasp the STRATEGIC requirements of the nation and orient their plans and operations to attain them. On the other hand, even though Hitler had a better grasp of the strategic requirements, he failed to see that Germany simply was not in a position to carry out its strategic goals against the opposition against them. Germany's early successes were completely due to the unwillingness of the other European nations to recognize that war was required to stop Germany's aggression (the Sudetenland, annexation of Czechoslovakia, etc) and their general unpreparedness once it was finally forced upon them. Germany's requirements were such that they simply could not be satisfied before the other nations came to a full war footing, and Germany's position was such that they would never be able to defeat their opponents once that happened. The conflicts between Hitler and his generals certainly didn't HELP Germany during the war, but since they were never in a position that would have allowed them to win the war they picked anyway, it certainly didn't COST them the war. Mike Mike I sort of agree/disagree. I completely agree that Germany underestimated their oil needs by thinking it would all be over quickly. The success they had in Western Europe didn’t help, Mussolini getting them involved in North Africa, a greater priority on Moscow over the oil fields to the south all helped doom Hitler. That said, Hitler calling a halt to the advancement into Russia screwed them. They lost what, 6 weeks? It gave the Soviet’s time to catch their breath, restock and dig in. By the time Germany got rolling again it was too late. Winter was on its way and Russia had too much time over the winter to get prepared and the factories moved/up and running in the East. Had Hitler not called a stop nothing lay in their way to Moscow, nor on to the East. Taking Moscow would have put those factories within range of his bombers. The defeat in Russia, for either side, depended on who controlled Moscow over that first winter, imo. Had they rolled on into Moscow and pushed the soviets out nothing would have stopped Germany from linking up with Rommel in NA and taking the oil fields. There was no general halt in 1941. What you're referring to a couple different halts that affected Army Group Center primarily, in its drive east. After the battle of Smolensk, Army Group Center had no choice but to halt, and there was nobody that was actually against that halt. They had to take a couple weeks to halt and recover. The mobile divisions were in horrible shape, in terms of losses and broken down vehicles. Weakened units needed to reconstitute, amalgamate existing units with survivors and insert fresh reserves of replacement battalions. Spare parts barely across the Polish borders needed to reach the front and be used to fix broken tanks. Etc. Meanwhile, the infantry divisions were not combat ready to start another 250 mile march to Moscow (as the crow flies). They'd forced march for hundreds of miles already and then just fighting a devastatingly destructive battle at Smolensk, that while resulting in massive Red Army losses also battered the German to the point that they reached over 100,000 casualties. Those infantry divisions couldn't take a break until the mobile divisions were rested, because they're the ones who relieved them and allowed the panzer and motorized infantry divisions to rest in the first place, so they too needed weeks to recover. Not just the men, the horses too, who were dying in droves and needed to be replaced. Then there was the extremely precarious supply system that was absolutely impractical for further movement east. The Soviet rail gauges all had to be rebuilt to use German trains, there weren't enough captured Soviet engines and cars to rely on them, the rail line bridges were often too weak to support fully loaded trains, and there was major partisan issue because the speed of the drive thus far was largely the result of bypassing entire armies worth of soldiers, who were all still in the rear causing trouble. Supply trucks belonging to the mobile division, to bring a single gallon of fuel and a single artillery shell, were required to DRIVE ALL THE WAY BACK TO POLAND and then back just for resupply, which was destroying the truck fleet as they were in no condition to drive on the dust filled roads of central Russia. Then there was the issues that Army Groups North and South faced. The former was stationed in terrain that made grand encirclement operations nearly impossible, while in the south they faced the bulk of the Red Army. Plus, they had less than half the mobile divisions of Army Group Center. Both were essentially stuck too, which resulted in a front line trace that had the center far too forward, with extremely exposed flanks. Thus the decision was to delay Army Group Center's infantry armies advance while the two panzer groups went north and south respectively and assisted their compatriots. Which worked flawlessly. With the help, Army Group North was able to drive onto Leningrad, while in the south it resulted in the largest mass encirclement in human history at Kiev, which bagged over 3/4 of a million Red Army troops. Even after that, the positioning of Guderians panzer group, coming from the south, greatly assisted him when the general advance toward Moscow was resumed, resulting in the massive encirclements at the Vyazma-Bryansk, which couldn't have happened if everyone drove straight west to east. That operation bagged another 600,000 Red Army troops. The only way to defeat the Soviet Union was not about capturing a city that they were already planning on evacuating already, it was about destroying the Red Army and making it impossible for them to continue operations. The way to achieve that was to smash fronts and field armies, not drive deeper and deeper into Russia before winter. |
|
Quoted: Nailed it. But, I would add, ask the Jap. Emperior to hold off on attacking the USA. View Quote Neither Germany nor Japan were in a position to delay their wars, and for the same reason: Oil. Japan needed a large supply of oil both for their economy and to enable their military operations in Chine. The US embargoed Japan and convinced the other oil-supplying nations to do the same because of those military operations, and Japan was going to have to abandon their plans sooner rather than later if they didn't get oil. Germany was in exactly the same position, as they also were nowhere near self-sufficient in oil production, and England's Royal Navy prevented them from importing it via sea trade, leaving the Soviet Union as the only supply they could possibly reach. The only thing that could convince Japan to hold off on attacking the US would have been a supply of oil, and Germany was in no position to supply it. Both nations were therefore left with the choice of abandoning not only their expansionist plans, but the territories that they had already gained, or expand the war to get the resources they needed to carry on. Both chose to expand their wars, and both found that to be a very bad idea in the end. Mike |
|
Quoted: Up until June 22, 1941, Hitler was winning the war. He had overrun most of Europe, he had Europe's most powerful war machine, he had reestablished the German Empire and unified the German-speaking peoples of Europe. Had he stopped there WWII would have ended differently. The minute the first Panzer crossed the Russian border he guaranteed he wouldn't be able to win a quick victory. The minute Germany declared war on the US he guaranteed he wouldn't win unless Germany developed nuclear weapons. At that point it became a war of logistics, and Germany simply couldn't keep up with the Allies. View Quote Again, the Nazis being the Nazis guaranteed they would never create nuclear weapons during the war. |
|
Quoted: Lol, you haven’t read very much. Nazi = National socialism. Communist = International socialism Massive difference in ideology, if you have actually bothered to read about them. The only things they share in common are genocide, totalitarian control and the name socialism. View Quote Totalitarian control of the economy is no minor commonality when discussing their economic stupidity. |
|
I'd actually say, that if Germany had no allies at all in the war, they would have had more success.
Italy will do dumbass stuff in Ethiopia, Egypt, Libya, Albania and Greece. Japan will be of no help against the Soviets, they will fight your somewhat allies in the nationalist Chinese, and of course pick a fight with the biggest sleeping giant - USA. If Germany wasnt bogged down bailing out Mussolini, they would have had the resources to fight the Soviets and had a much better shot at winning. |
|
First of all, it's worth noting that even with all kinds of strategic mistakes (everyone makes them!) Germany was close to defeating the Soviet Union. Therefore, it might not have taken much to make a big difference. IMO, they would have been in a much better position if:
1. They had fully embraced / loved Jewish people. Not joking, the Jewish people could have done a LOT to support Germany's war effort. Hell, the scientists and business leaders alone had incredible value. But even the grunts... Israel's wars have shown that Jews can fight pretty damn well...and Germany needed all the good fighters they could get. 2. They had made the entire effort a European war against RussianCommunism rather than a "Germany Uber Alles / take over everyone" plan. The fact is, there just wasn't enough Germans to beat the Soviets in the field, but Germans + a good chunk of the rest of Europe could have. 3. Much better strategic coordination with Italy and Japan. Italy especially was a cluster. Their botched / untimely Yugoslavia invasion and their complete unwillingness to use their Navy to secure the Mediterranean was seriously problematic. Not to mention Japan refusing to close down Vladivostok, which they essentially had surrounded and yet acted like traffic cops waving in a never ending stream of American supply ships. 4. Honestly, this is the hardest one: getting kraut designers to focus on production efficiency rather than over engineering the HELL out of everything. Seriously, look at the STG-44 trigger assembly if you want to see a textbook example of wartime inefficiency. IMO, those 4 would have been sufficient to defeat the Soviet Union. Wouldn't have been easy, but a world war never is. Bonus: free the German army to fight a truly mobile war. Avoid urban warfare as much as possible. Surround it, and use NBC if necessary, but don't waste anyone in fighting street to street, where the Soviet soldier has the advantage. Screw symbolic victory and taking capitals. Make defeating the red army the ONLY objective. Which isn't to say that you don't destroy industrial centers, but fighting to the last man to hold a city is stupid. Scorched Earth and leave before the enemy attacks makes much more sense. |
|
Quoted: First of all, it's worth noting that even with all kinds of strategic mistakes (everyone makes them!) Germany was close to defeating the Soviet Union. Therefore, it might not have taken much to make a big difference. IMO, they would have been in a much better position if: 1. They had fully embraced / loved Jewish people. Not joking, the Jewish people could have done a LOT to support Germany's war effort. Hell, the scientists and business leaders alone had incredible value. But even the grunts... Israel's wars have shown that Jews can fight pretty damn well...and Germany needed all the good fighters they could get. 2. They had made the entire effort a European war against RussianCommunism rather than a "Germany Uber Alles / take over everyone" plan. The fact is, there just wasn't enough Germans to beat the Soviets in the field, but Germans + a good chunk of the rest of Europe could have. 3. Much better strategic coordination with Italy and Japan. Italy especially was a cluster. Their botched / untimely Yugoslavia invasion and their complete unwillingness to use their Navy to secure the Mediterranean was seriously problematic. Not to mention Japan refusing to close down Vladivostok, which they essentially had surrounded and yet acted like traffic cops waving in a never ending stream of American supply ships. 4. Honestly, this is the hardest one: getting kraut designers to focus on production efficiency rather than over engineering the HELL out of everything. Seriously, look at the STG-44 trigger assembly if you want to see a textbook example of wartime inefficiency. IMO, those 4 would have been sufficient to defeat the Soviet Union. Wouldn't have been easy, but a world war never is. Bonus: free the German army to fight a truly mobile war. Avoid urban warfare as much as possible. Surround it, and use NBC if necessary, but don't waste anyone in fighting street to street, where the Soviet soldier has the advantage. Screw symbolic victory and taking capitals. Make defeating the red army the ONLY objective. Which isn't to say that you don't destroy industrial centers, but fighting to the last man to hold a city is stupid. Scorched Earth and leave before the enemy attacks makes much more sense. View Quote |
|
Quoted: First thing: Execute the guy who invented the interleaved wheel assembly for panther and Tiger tanks. View Quote Yep, it's like they can't help themselves. If they can over engineer it, they did...right up until the last 6 months or the war or so. I like the STG44 example because we're all familiar to common triggers (AR, AK etc.) and the gun was designed late in the war when they needed max production with min resources in the worst possible way. |
|
|
Quoted: Well, that simply isn’t true. That may have been its effect, but not its purpose. The problem with its purpose is that it was written by lots of people who all wanted different things and couldn’t agree. Wilson wanted his Fourteen Points, which the Germans seized upon as salvation when they agreed to sign the Armistice. France wanted Germany held down forever and a military alliance against Germany in the future, not that I blame them. England and France wanted to carve up Germany’s colonies, Wilson wanted to end colonialism. England and France had lost millions of men and wanted some form of reparation. Belgium and been blown into pieces but wasn’t even included at the big table. Wilson wanted to re-draw the map of Europe to ensure ethno-linguistic harmony, that proved to be impossible. It was a Gordian knot. View Quote So the history books written by the victors tell us. What is the Golden Rule? He with the gold, makes the rules. From mid 1916 onwards, Britain and France we economic hostages of the United States. Little known fact most people don’t know is that in 1916, Britain, France and Germany all wanted to stop the war. They had no more national sovereignty, being that they would now have to go cap in hand to America for their war loans to prevent their economic collapse. The 2 best things that ever happened to America economically were: WW1 WW2 Follow the money, it never lies. Furthermore, whenever the Dulles brothers are involved with something, there is always some seriously shady shit going on. |
|
Quoted: Living space was just an early goal, world domination is what he was after. Even if they had stopped, it wouldn't have lasted. They would have needed to continue to absorb other nations in order to sustain themselves. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: He could have 'won' easily if he had declared victory in 1940 after the fall of France. Don't invade Russia, attempt a separate peace with Britain (or just ignore them) and spend the next several years creating a Fortress Europe Uber Recih of Germany + France + Belgium + Czech Republic + 1/2 Poland. At that point in the War, he had more then achieved 'liebenstraum' and had suffered minimal casualties, and had all of Germany's industrial base intact. Living space was just an early goal, world domination is what he was after. Even if they had stopped, it wouldn't have lasted. They would have needed to continue to absorb other nations in order to sustain themselves. AJP Taylor actually had a much different analysis: ![]() https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_the_Second_World_War https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Second-World-War/dp/0684829479 Fantastic book, and highly regarded by historians - a classic of most 20th century history courses. TL;DR: -Hitler had a lot of ideas, but was pretty loose / opportunistic in implementing them. -Hitler did NOT expect to fight WW2. This is the #1 conclusion of AJP's book. After his easy success in Czechoslovakia, and the totally cucked response from Chamberlain ('peace in our time'), Hitler fully expected that Poland would be CZ 2.0. When Britain and France did not cuck out over poland, and instead declared war, Hitler was shocked and that then lead to a scrambled but hugely successful invasion of France, kicking off WW2 in earnest. Basically, his argument was that WW2 was not a diabolical, well thought out Nazi master plan, but rather a more or less improvised, slap dash effort taken about after a surprise declaration of War by Britain and France after the invasion of Poland. Needless to say, AJP's work was hugely controversial at the time, and remains so today. But it's an interesting hypothesis, and meticulously researched and written. As far as 'needing to absorb other Nations to sustain themselves,' that is not true. France is some of the most fertile growing lands in Europe / the world. Combined with Poland, Belgium, CZ, Austria + All of the Global French colonies (Algeria, Vietnam, etc) Germany would have had more then enough to be self sufficient. The proof of that is the modern EU of today; Hitlers territory in 1940 is the most productive parts of the modern EU today. Had 1940 Uber Reich been able to achieve a separate peace with Britain, and avoided a US entry into the war, by 1950 we would have seen Uber Reich resuming major exports / manufacturing to Britain and the US, much in the way Germany alone had been doing in the pre-WW1 era, where Germany was the 'China of Europe' for manufacturing exports. A truly shrewd Uber Reich may even have managed a military alliance with UK + US as a 'bullwark against communism.' Arguing that yes, we're a bunch of evil nazi's, but we're keeping the Soviets penned in Russia. Notably, the US partnered extensively with former Nazis after the war precisely for that purpose - to be used against the Soviets. |
|
Quoted: -Hitler did NOT expect to fight WW2. This is the #1 conclusion of AJP's book. After his easy success in Czechoslovakia, and the totally cucked response from Chamberlain ('peace in our time'), Hitler fully expected that Poland would be CZ 2.0. When Britain and France did not cuck out over poland, and instead declared war, Hitler was shocked and that then lead to a scrambled but hugely successful invasion of France, kicking off WW2 in earnest. View Quote The problem with this is that no one sane is absolutely sure about something so complicated...and i don't believe Hitler was insane. Even if you're really really sure that some other country is going to respond to certain inputs in a certain way, there's always some degree of "but what if they don't?", especially when you're talking about something with such high stakes. France had to be punished for Versailles, and the Communist horde in the east were dangerous subhuman scum that had to be fought as well. Also, France and England did cuck out over Poland. Setzenkrieg was a thing...the limeys and frogs didn't actually do anything but talk tough and move some troops around...not like they stormed the Rheinland. |
|
Quoted: 1. Hilter was a murderous agent of the devil who sought mass death more than anything, including the mass death of his own countrymen. 2. If you need to go beyond that, Germany grossly overextended itself way beyond its capabilities to support armies. View Quote He wasn't such a bad guy. I mean he did kill Hitler after all. |
|
Quoted: AJP Taylor actually had a much different analysis: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51b1TuRuuxL._SX337_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_the_Second_World_War https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Second-World-War/dp/0684829479 Fantastic book, and highly regarded by historians - a classic of most 20th century history courses. After his easy success in Czechoslovakia, and the totally cucked response from Chamberlain ('peace in our time'), Hitler fully expected that Poland would be CZ 2.0. View Quote Anyone who thinks Chamberlain was an appeaser shouldn't be taken seriously. Britain couldn't have done anything in 1938 even if they had wanted to. Britain had only 2 squadrons of modern fighters at the time. By the outbreak of war it had almost 40 squadrons of modern fighters. The British Army more than doubled in size from Munich to the outbreak of war. Chamberlain came home from Munich and instituted the largest British peacetime rearmament program in British history. Appeasers don't do that. Chamberlain bought Britain the time it needed to actually be able to fight a war. Chamberlain had no choice but to play for time. The man most responsible for British victory in the Battle of Britain, was Chamberlain, not Churchill. The British are some shady fucks, if they tell you they are doing something nice, watch the fuck out. ![]() |
|
Quoted: Exactly. Sign a nonaggression pact with Poland and move East. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Should've done Barbarossa before invading Poland ![]() Exactly. Sign a nonaggression pact with Poland and move East. LOL, or with the US Government. I think we were fully prepared to go either way (Hitler/Stalin) at that point ![]() |
|
Quoted: If you’re a Jew, Gypsy, Slav, host of other groups of people, national socialism wants you dead. If you’re devout Christian or Jew and / or white, international communism wants you dead. National socialism tried to protect institutions such as the nuclear family and Christianity. International socialism tried (has) destroyed the Christian church and the nuclear family. Being that family and Judeo-Christian values and the nuclear family are the bedrock of western civilization, and one type of socialism is trying to protect it and the other type of socialism is trying to destroy it, that’s a MASSIVE difference. Limited capitalism was allowed under the national socialists. ANY capitalism meant a trip to the gulag under the international socialists. Private property of the middle class and the wealthy was protected by the rule of law under the national socialists. Under the international socialists, anyone who was not working class got their property “appropriated” (stolen and then murdered) by the government. People were allowed to travel abroad with restrictions under national socialism. Under international socialism, you were a prisoner of the Soviet Union, travel abroad = escape. I could go on and on, but there is a massive difference in the types of socialism. International socialism is so evil it made people think the national socialists were good guys. How fucked is that. Ask the Ukrainians! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: So to the man on the street and average Party member...identical in every way. Got it. Much massive difference, lol. If you’re a Jew, Gypsy, Slav, host of other groups of people, national socialism wants you dead. If you’re devout Christian or Jew and / or white, international communism wants you dead. National socialism tried to protect institutions such as the nuclear family and Christianity. International socialism tried (has) destroyed the Christian church and the nuclear family. Being that family and Judeo-Christian values and the nuclear family are the bedrock of western civilization, and one type of socialism is trying to protect it and the other type of socialism is trying to destroy it, that’s a MASSIVE difference. Limited capitalism was allowed under the national socialists. ANY capitalism meant a trip to the gulag under the international socialists. Private property of the middle class and the wealthy was protected by the rule of law under the national socialists. Under the international socialists, anyone who was not working class got their property “appropriated” (stolen and then murdered) by the government. People were allowed to travel abroad with restrictions under national socialism. Under international socialism, you were a prisoner of the Soviet Union, travel abroad = escape. I could go on and on, but there is a massive difference in the types of socialism. International socialism is so evil it made people think the national socialists were good guys. How fucked is that. Ask the Ukrainians! Yeah, still not seeing the difference. Communism killed a shitload of Slavs, too. And drop the "whites" crap, we're talking about WWII times, here, not modern communist movements. "Whites" as a race didn't even exist back then outside of America, and "browning the world" sure as hell was never part of Soviet policy. Fascism directly led to the worst destruction Europe had seen since the Dark Ages, and they were hand-in-hand with communists until the bullets started flying between them. You really think it was all about protecting "Western Ideals" (whatever those are), and that it was only because they had a mirror-image opponent to spar with that things went so wrong? It wasn't simply a struggle over who got to call the shots in Italy, Germany, or Spain; local upstarts or the Ruskies? Fascism has a real bad habit of going batshit insane and crashing-out so quickly it is rarely able to realize the sorts of totalitarian controls seen under generational communist regimes (has a fascist regime ever lasted beyond the first cult of personality ruler? If so it's quite rare). That's the only reason you don't see travel bans, widespread expropriation of industry, all-seeing intelligence orgs, et cetera; areas like Spain that suffered under relatively stable fascist rule also had many restrictions similar to communist areas (travel permits, police state shit, etc) within the limitations of Spaniard incompetence. Gestapo is the same thing as Stasi, and nothing about the fascist ideology precludes equally totalitarian policy (therefore it's equally inevitable) But least the Nazi's believed in family values, eh Walter Sobchak? ![]() ![]() |
|
Quoted: Hitler made many tactical mistakes. He should have stopped at Western Europe and made it into Fortress Europe. Dump the bolt action K98's in favor of putting StG's and FG-42's into the hands of every soldier. German logistical lines were still dominated by horses at the time and needed to be fully mechanized. The German Navy needed 4-5 times as many U-boats and tanks. They desperatly needed a four-engine strategic bomber in huge numbers. V-1 flying bombs and V-2 ballistic missiles should have been ten times their numbers and television-guided bombs needed to have been further developed...not to mention radar technology. Hitler should have waited 5-8 years to let his military technology catch up with his aspirations. At the time, the German Jews had the greatest concentration of academics and highly skilled labor in the country. He should have nurtured the Jews and leveraged their skill base instead of trying to destroy them. The Messerschmidt ME-109's and Focke-Wulf FW-190's shoukd have been augmented with about 10,000 ME-262 fighter jets as well. Just my two cents... View Quote No tech or machinery was gonna save them once America was involved. War with Russia was inevitable (Stalin would definitely pounce if Germany came off its war footing). The only smart move the Germans could have made was to force an armistice and very quickly work to repair relations with the Allies (because Stalin was an implacable foe). Unfortunately, by the time the war was much under way at all, Hitler had so provoked the world that suing for peace on his terms was unlikely. Really, he should have worked toward better relations with the US over Russia prior to the war (we were always going to be kingmaker) and not needlessly linked himself with the Japanese, strategically. But lingering feelings over WWI of course made that impossible, so he had to side with Stalin in order to neutralize that threat instead of allowing WWII to start by Stalin's hand (which was also incompatible with the blitzkrieg strategy). Of course such foresight would have been positively superhuman, and he'd have had to have been more like Putin than Hitler to pull off such a delicate strategy; his personality simply wasn't suitable for finding a viable long-term path to victory for Germany. He was all about identifying enemy weaknesses & attacking them, when a more patient focus on addressing Germany's weaknesses & defending them would have likely been more successful in the long run --but defense isn't as sexy as offense, and fascism is even more about image than communism. |
|
Quoted: He flat out rejected the Treaty in 1935- 36. Openly said he was finished with the terms of it. Germany pretty much had been violating the terms since the late 1920s. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Its pretty nuts they did as well as they did IMHO for a single country whose armament rebuild from the first world war was hindered by the Treaty of Versailles He flat out rejected the Treaty in 1935- 36. Openly said he was finished with the terms of it. Germany pretty much had been violating the terms since the late 1920s. They'd simply outsourced a lot of it to allies in Switzerland and Spain |
|
Quoted: The purpose of the Treaty of Versailles was to make sure WW1 continued at a later date. Which when you look at the fact that the Dulles brothers were instrumental in crafting it, everything makes sense. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: He flat out rejected the Treaty in 1935- 36. Openly said he was finished with the terms of it. Germany pretty much had been violating the terms since the late 1920s. The purpose of the Treaty of Versailles was to make sure WW1 continued at a later date. Which when you look at the fact that the Dulles brothers were instrumental in crafting it, everything makes sense. Delay of game until such time as it can be decisively won by one of the players ![]() |
|
Quoted: He had a concern for France. They had a larger army and more armor. But after he retook the Ruhr/ Rhineland and saw the response it bumped his confidence a bit. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: iv always wondered what would have happened had hitler waited until 1940 and instead of fucking with france, belgium, england etc, had instead built up his forces and attacked russia much harder and only had them to deal with. i think he might have beaten them. Stalin treated most of russia like absolute shit, murdering and starving them by the millions. hell, stalin murdered his own citizens on a scale hitler could only dream of doing, and stalin had been doing it long before WWII ever kicked off. the germans were welcomed in many areas as saviors and were treated as such. if hitler could have made it to moscow and removed stalin and taken control of russia he would have been in a great position. he would have had russias oil fields, vast resources, factories and shitloads of russians who would have likely happily worked to build war machines for germany and maybe even serve in the military in exchange for decent treatment, food, farms, and land as rewards and such. i also doubt russia would have gotten any aid from the united states while fighting germany, as long as hitler left the western countries alone. then once he defeated russia, he could rebuild his military with the aid of russian factories, that would be much more difficult to bomb than german factories were. then with a rebuilt military, secure oil, resources, and increased manpower he could go after france, england etc and likely be unstoppable with russians manufacturing his war materials in massive quantities. if he left the west alone i doubt they would have been able to band together and build their militaries until germany started attacking them, and it would have been too late by then. its a interesting scenerio. He had a concern for France. They had a larger army and more armor. But after he retook the Ruhr/ Rhineland and saw the response it bumped his confidence a bit. He also had a grudge. It'd be like us conquering Brazil randomly to assert our sovereignty, instead of Mexico; sure they're a more significant strategic threat and their elimination would open the door to taking all of South America, but good luck convincing people to go along with it for very long when we have no real history of conflict to riff on. |
|
Quoted: Hitler didn't trust his generals, because they botched the planning and execution of the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hard as it is to hear (and to say), Hitler had a much better appreciation of the strategic situation in the East at the start of the war than did the German military staff. Hitler's vision for the invasion of the Soviet Union involved the early seizure of the oil fields, because Germany in 1941 lacked the oil to supply the economy and military just to maintain the areas it had already taken. The German military staff, skilled as they were in the tactical and operational levels of warfare, had little appreciation for the strategic goals of the campaign, and deliberately allocated less forces to the oil campaign because they believed the war would be won by a drive on the capital, much like it was in France, and completely ignored the fact that Napoleon tried the same thing and lost his army even AFTER successfully capturing Moscow. Capturing Moscow would have done nothing to provide Germany with the oil it needed to run its economy. Was Hitler a paranoid micromanager? Sure, especially later in the war (although in his defense, his generals DID try to kill him at least once). Operation Watch on the Rhine (leading to the Battle of the Bulge) was an unrealistic plan with little or no chance of success, but even then, the staff that planned it really didn't expect or plan the operation through to its intended conclusion. The German war machine lost its war for several reasons, and no one reason "cost them the war." Germany wouldn't have won the war if Hitler listened to his generals, because those generals were unable to grasp the STRATEGIC requirements of the nation and orient their plans and operations to attain them. On the other hand, even though Hitler had a better grasp of the strategic requirements, he failed to see that Germany simply was not in a position to carry out its strategic goals against the opposition against them. Germany's early successes were completely due to the unwillingness of the other European nations to recognize that war was required to stop Germany's aggression (the Sudetenland, annexation of Czechoslovakia, etc) and their general unpreparedness once it was finally forced upon them. Germany's requirements were such that they simply could not be satisfied before the other nations came to a full war footing, and Germany's position was such that they would never be able to defeat their opponents once that happened. The conflicts between Hitler and his generals certainly didn't HELP Germany during the war, but since they were never in a position that would have allowed them to win the war they picked anyway, it certainly didn't COST them the war. Mike View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Personally I think Hitler doomed himself on the eastern front. It’s been awhile since I’ve done much reading but I THINK between him delaying the invasion AND stopping the advance of the panzer divisions to allow everyone to catch up it allowed the Russian winter to set in and Moscow time to dig in. What he didn’t know was basically nothing stood in his way between the front line and Moscow. Even though the Germans did make it to the outskirts once the cold arrived it basically shut everything down. Ultimately because of this he couldn’t reach the factories further East with his bombers allowing the Soviets to get their shit together, produce a few tanks, planes etc.. Hitler lost WW2 because he didn’t listen to his generals. Another example was the placement of their armor leading up to D-Day. Him deciding to keep the armor in the rear and calling them up after the fact, instead of closer to the beach probably allowed the invasion to succeed. All just my opinion of course. Hitler didn't trust his generals, because they botched the planning and execution of the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hard as it is to hear (and to say), Hitler had a much better appreciation of the strategic situation in the East at the start of the war than did the German military staff. Hitler's vision for the invasion of the Soviet Union involved the early seizure of the oil fields, because Germany in 1941 lacked the oil to supply the economy and military just to maintain the areas it had already taken. The German military staff, skilled as they were in the tactical and operational levels of warfare, had little appreciation for the strategic goals of the campaign, and deliberately allocated less forces to the oil campaign because they believed the war would be won by a drive on the capital, much like it was in France, and completely ignored the fact that Napoleon tried the same thing and lost his army even AFTER successfully capturing Moscow. Capturing Moscow would have done nothing to provide Germany with the oil it needed to run its economy. Was Hitler a paranoid micromanager? Sure, especially later in the war (although in his defense, his generals DID try to kill him at least once). Operation Watch on the Rhine (leading to the Battle of the Bulge) was an unrealistic plan with little or no chance of success, but even then, the staff that planned it really didn't expect or plan the operation through to its intended conclusion. The German war machine lost its war for several reasons, and no one reason "cost them the war." Germany wouldn't have won the war if Hitler listened to his generals, because those generals were unable to grasp the STRATEGIC requirements of the nation and orient their plans and operations to attain them. On the other hand, even though Hitler had a better grasp of the strategic requirements, he failed to see that Germany simply was not in a position to carry out its strategic goals against the opposition against them. Germany's early successes were completely due to the unwillingness of the other European nations to recognize that war was required to stop Germany's aggression (the Sudetenland, annexation of Czechoslovakia, etc) and their general unpreparedness once it was finally forced upon them. Germany's requirements were such that they simply could not be satisfied before the other nations came to a full war footing, and Germany's position was such that they would never be able to defeat their opponents once that happened. The conflicts between Hitler and his generals certainly didn't HELP Germany during the war, but since they were never in a position that would have allowed them to win the war they picked anyway, it certainly didn't COST them the war. Mike Very well put; Hitler was ultimately crying for the moon. The combination of ingredients he had to work with simply couldn't resolve any other way (his meteoric rise to power by force of personality, rapid ambitious expansion, anger/betrayal of powerful players now on his margins, and collapse once they finally turn to address his threat with their full might) |
|
Quoted: They had to stop to let logistics catch up. They were out of ammo food and replacement parts. They didn't even give them preps from winter occupation/ conquest. Clothes. Oil. Lubricants. And they were pretty much exhausted as well. There were some mighty fine points that helped with their overall fail, but I still have a desire that they played it out a bit better so more on both sides died. Commies and Nazis. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hitler didn't trust his generals, because they botched the planning and execution of the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hard as it is to hear (and to say), Hitler had a much better appreciation of the strategic situation in the East at the start of the war than did the German military staff. Hitler's vision for the invasion of the Soviet Union involved the early seizure of the oil fields, because Germany in 1941 lacked the oil to supply the economy and military just to maintain the areas it had already taken. The German military staff, skilled as they were in the tactical and operational levels of warfare, had little appreciation for the strategic goals of the campaign, and deliberately allocated less forces to the oil campaign because they believed the war would be won by a drive on the capital, much like it was in France, and completely ignored the fact that Napoleon tried the same thing and lost his army even AFTER successfully capturing Moscow. Capturing Moscow would have done nothing to provide Germany with the oil it needed to run its economy. Was Hitler a paranoid micromanager? Sure, especially later in the war (although in his defense, his generals DID try to kill him at least once). Operation Watch on the Rhine (leading to the Battle of the Bulge) was an unrealistic plan with little or no chance of success, but even then, the staff that planned it really didn't expect or plan the operation through to its intended conclusion. The German war machine lost its war for several reasons, and no one reason "cost them the war." Germany wouldn't have won the war if Hitler listened to his generals, because those generals were unable to grasp the STRATEGIC requirements of the nation and orient their plans and operations to attain them. On the other hand, even though Hitler had a better grasp of the strategic requirements, he failed to see that Germany simply was not in a position to carry out its strategic goals against the opposition against them. Germany's early successes were completely due to the unwillingness of the other European nations to recognize that war was required to stop Germany's aggression (the Sudetenland, annexation of Czechoslovakia, etc) and their general unpreparedness once it was finally forced upon them. Germany's requirements were such that they simply could not be satisfied before the other nations came to a full war footing, and Germany's position was such that they would never be able to defeat their opponents once that happened. The conflicts between Hitler and his generals certainly didn't HELP Germany during the war, but since they were never in a position that would have allowed them to win the war they picked anyway, it certainly didn't COST them the war. Mike Mike I sort of agree/disagree. I completely agree that Germany underestimated their oil needs by thinking it would all be over quickly. The success they had in Western Europe didn’t help, Mussolini getting them involved in North Africa, a greater priority on Moscow over the oil fields to the south all helped doom Hitler. That said, Hitler calling a halt to the advancement into Russia screwed them. They lost what, 6 weeks? It gave the Soviet’s time to catch their breath, restock and dig in. By the time Germany got rolling again it was too late. Winter was on its way and Russia had too much time over the winter to get prepared and the factories moved/up and running in the East. Had Hitler not called a stop nothing lay in their way to Moscow, nor on to the East. Taking Moscow would have put those factories within range of his bombers. The defeat in Russia, for either side, depended on who controlled Moscow over that first winter, imo. Had they rolled on into Moscow and pushed the soviets out nothing would have stopped Germany from linking up with Rommel in NA and taking the oil fields. They had to stop to let logistics catch up. They were out of ammo food and replacement parts. They didn't even give them preps from winter occupation/ conquest. Clothes. Oil. Lubricants. And they were pretty much exhausted as well. There were some mighty fine points that helped with their overall fail, but I still have a desire that they played it out a bit better so more on both sides died. Commies and Nazis. Nazis press on to capture Moscow Soviet government collapses (I think it's a realistic outcome at that level of disruption, similar to their exit in WWI) Nazis buttfucked by Allies in their moment of over-extended triumph Nazi government collapses Hard to imagine what the aftermath of so many power vacuums would be (I don't see us Marshal Planning all of Europe AND Russia AND Japan) but Russia would be far more likely a far more significant and far less malevolent player on the world stage today. Probably a cluster of ethno-basketcase states under an assortment of little-Stalins, but with 3-5x its current population and therefore a larger global presence (possibly even a powerful one after eighty years of relative stability). It'd be interesting to consider what impacts that would have had on China; I don't know if the fall of Russia would have helped strengthen Chang Kai-Shek enough to hold off the Maoists, or possibly diverted the Japanese to Soviet lands over Chinese ones. The Pacific seems to have fewer alternate endings than the European theater, but the loss of the Soviets would have definitely changed things. |
|
Quoted: Russia was going to smoke the Germans one way or the other. Being a Nazi retard did affect how poorly the Germans did but the outcome wouldn't have changed even if they'd have chilled out after absorbing Austria. Imagine how different the world would be if we would've had to prop up German Nationalists to keep France from falling to the Russians. Crazy. View Quote lol, no |
|
Quoted: Lol, no. The Soviet Union was a basket case militarily; their only advantages over Germany were their almost-endless resources and huge population. The Soviet Army had virtually collapsed by October 1941. Only the fall rains and a hard winter, combined with poor planning on the part of the Germans, saved them. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Russia was going to smoke the Germans one way or the other. Being a Nazi retard did affect how poorly the Germans did but the outcome wouldn't have changed even if they'd have chilled out after absorbing Austria. Imagine how different the world would be if we would've had to prop up German Nationalists to keep France from falling to the Russians. Crazy. Lol, no. The Soviet Union was a basket case militarily; their only advantages over Germany were their almost-endless resources and huge population. The Soviet Army had virtually collapsed by October 1941. Only the fall rains and a hard winter, combined with poor planning on the part of the Germans, saved them. Yeah... No biggie. Meh. |
|
Quoted: [Clip] As far as 'needing to absorb other Nations to sustain themselves,' that is not true. France is some of the most fertile growing lands in Europe / the world. Combined with Poland, Belgium, CZ, Austria + All of the Global French colonies (Algeria, Vietnam, etc) Germany would have had more then enough to be self sufficient. The proof of that is the modern EU of today; Hitlers territory in 1940 is the most productive parts of the modern EU today. Had 1940 Uber Reich been able to achieve a separate peace with Britain, and avoided a US entry into the war, by 1950 we would have seen Uber Reich resuming major exports / manufacturing to Britain and the US, much in the way Germany alone had been doing in the pre-WW1 era, where Germany was the 'China of Europe' for manufacturing exports. [Clip] View Quote Perception is reality. This perception of Eastward expansion was a Germanic one held by numerous influencial political and social sphere people pre-dating the rise (or even birth) of Hitler. A very popular one with the monarchists and other Nationalist groups to return to an earlier idealized mythological territorial possession by Germanic tribes. Poland. It had been divided up in the 18th Century and partitioned out to the Habsburgs, Kingdom of Prussia and the Russian empire. There had been a hard push to Germanize the Poles pre-WW I. Without success. After WW I the state of Poland was reconstituted by the League of Nations. Which created a bitter point of resentment with post-war Germany. Germans had been immigrating Eastward for millennia. And they lived in substantial numbers there since the mid-1700s. As had the Jews escaping persecution from Christianised Europe from the early Middle Ages. The reasons for German eastward expansion were many fold. The consolidation of all Germanic people into one Germanic superstate. The elimination of bad influences on Germanic race (cohabitation and having offspring with inferior races- Poles/ Slavs and Jews). A return to a mythologic time of purity of the Germanic Race as the superior and dominant civilization rightfully subjugating it's inferiors (Social Darwinism) for it's own benefit and their detriment. Additionally, lebensraum was to provide a buffer between rural Germans in the East with the more suburbanized, more modernized Germans of the West. This was part of the Volkish appeal. A return to an earlier life pre-industrial and community centered, absent the badness of the moral restrictions of slave mentality Christian religion. Your rationalisation of the lack of or motivation for Eastern conquest is at odds with Germanic thought in the moment. |
|
Quoted: They'd simply outsourced a lot of it to allies in Switzerland and Spain View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Its pretty nuts they did as well as they did IMHO for a single country whose armament rebuild from the first world war was hindered by the Treaty of Versailles He flat out rejected the Treaty in 1935- 36. Openly said he was finished with the terms of it. Germany pretty much had been violating the terms since the late 1920s. They'd simply outsourced a lot of it to allies in Switzerland and Spain Germany was an industrial powerhouse with a severe lack of cashflow. But they were very clever in how they got the buildup done. Mefo bills, Gestapo integration into workforce, slave labor and Keynesian economics moved shit right along. The outsourcing and the closed society control of resources, possessed and acquired, for their war economy got shit done. Pillage and plunder to be the payoff. |
|
Quoted: He also had a grudge. It'd be like us conquering Brazil randomly to assert our sovereignty, instead of Mexico; sure they're a more significant strategic threat and their elimination would open the door to taking all of South America, but good luck convincing people to go along with it for very long when we have no real history of conflict to riff on. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: iv always wondered what would have happened had hitler waited until 1940 and instead of fucking with france, belgium, england etc, had instead built up his forces and attacked russia much harder and only had them to deal with. i think he might have beaten them. Stalin treated most of russia like absolute shit, murdering and starving them by the millions. hell, stalin murdered his own citizens on a scale hitler could only dream of doing, and stalin had been doing it long before WWII ever kicked off. the germans were welcomed in many areas as saviors and were treated as such. if hitler could have made it to moscow and removed stalin and taken control of russia he would have been in a great position. he would have had russias oil fields, vast resources, factories and shitloads of russians who would have likely happily worked to build war machines for germany and maybe even serve in the military in exchange for decent treatment, food, farms, and land as rewards and such. i also doubt russia would have gotten any aid from the united states while fighting germany, as long as hitler left the western countries alone. then once he defeated russia, he could rebuild his military with the aid of russian factories, that would be much more difficult to bomb than german factories were. then with a rebuilt military, secure oil, resources, and increased manpower he could go after france, england etc and likely be unstoppable with russians manufacturing his war materials in massive quantities. if he left the west alone i doubt they would have been able to band together and build their militaries until germany started attacking them, and it would have been too late by then. its a interesting scenerio. He had a concern for France. They had a larger army and more armor. But after he retook the Ruhr/ Rhineland and saw the response it bumped his confidence a bit. He also had a grudge. It'd be like us conquering Brazil randomly to assert our sovereignty, instead of Mexico; sure they're a more significant strategic threat and their elimination would open the door to taking all of South America, but good luck convincing people to go along with it for very long when we have no real history of conflict to riff on. Yep. The Treaty of Versailles was probably the one salient point that brought all Germans together in agreement. |
|
The day he declared war on The United States of America was the day he lost the war.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.