nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How could Hitler have won WW2?

Samsonsmasher

There is no possible scenario where Hitler would not have gone to war against the Allies or specifically avoided war with the Soviet Union but it was not inevitable that he would have lost although Hitler's ideology could not leave any possibility of surrendering to the Allies on any terms once war began. He saw everything in absolute terms - he had either to win or he would fight on to the bitter end and suicide.

The moment after which Hitler could not win was when Churchill became PM after a meeting between himself Lord Halifax who counselled peace and the King who was sympathetic. Had Churchill deferred to Halifax having failed to win support. Churchill was quite prepared to fight on believing America would intervene in Europe as they did in 1917 and was prepared to sacrifice the empire in the process. Halifax was prepared to make peace with Hitler in return for retaining British interests just as the defeated French had whose armies continued to garrison their far flung colonies after the fall of Paris in 1940.

Hitler sought to be the master of Europe in order that he could grab living space in Soviet Russia as far as the Urals. He was under no illusions that he would be at war with the United States but gambled that the Soviet Union would collapse before the end of 1941. He had to believe this of course because Nazi Germany faced an acute fuel crisis.

Hitler had to seize the Caucasus oil fields by 1941-42 or not only future military operations would jeopardized but the Reich economy itself. Hitler had to grab Moscow and the Caucasus the first year or the Soviets would be in a position to mobilize it's full resources to stop and roll back invasion which is in fact what happened.

The major speedbump was the British resistance in the Balkans and Greece in 1941 and the Mediterranean that threatened the southern flank of Hitler's Europe. Those vital months which saw a desperate hopeless rearguard by the British actually delayed and hampered Barbarossa.

Hitler's forward reconnaissance units could actually see the spires of Moscow's St Basil's cathedral through their field glasses before they were forced to retreat.

The Japanese hit many of the American battleships at Pearl Harbour but did not hit the carriers which were at sea. In any case once America mobilized they produced thousands of ships which overwhelmed the Japanese.
Hitler knew FDR favoured a Europe First war policy so with the Soviet victory in the Battle of Moscow he knew war was coming with the United States and was prepared to go down fighting.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

RGARDINR

beauf wrote: »

Doing things like bombing civilians in towns and cities and torpedoing neutral shipping really backfired on Germany. Likewise their treatment of Russians. I can only imagine how using gas would have backfired.

Well if they have Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow from using it and possibly millions more Russians dead and having saved countless German soldiers I don't think it would of mattered. Pushed the red army further east bombed them from the air with aerial gas bombs. I think would of ended the Russian threat in the east in the end. Problem the Germans had were the Americans coming into the war, maybe had an agreement with the Japanese to not attack America but to attack other countries in the far East like British territories which they did but to not attack America or where American troops etc were. Deal with them after other enemies dealt with if Japan does go to war with America in 1941 don't you declare war on them and have Italy do the same. It might just save you from going to war with America while you deal with soviet Union and Britain.

jackboy

RGARDINR wrote: »

Well if they have Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow from using it and possibly millions more Russians dead and having saved countless German soldiers I don't think it would of mattered. Pushed the red army further east bombed them from the air with aerial gas bombs. I think would of ended the Russian threat in the east in the end. Problem the Germans had were the Americans coming into the war, maybe had an agreement with the Japanese to not attack America but to attack other countries in the far East like British territories which they did but to not attack America or where American troops etc were. Deal with them after other enemies dealt with if Japan does go to war with America in 1941 don't you declare war on them and have Italy do the same. It might just save you from going to war with America while you deal with soviet Union and Britain.

The problem for Japan was that the US was in the Philippines, right in the middle of things and far too close to Japan. If the US joined the brits later on the Philippines would have been a massive problem.

Regarding the gas, the Germans did not expect a lot of city fighting, rather short very mobile campaigns where gas would not be required.

beauf

RGARDINR wrote: »

Well if they have Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow from using it and possibly millions more Russians dead and having saved countless German soldiers I don't think it would of mattered. Pushed the red army further east bombed them from the air with aerial gas bombs. I think would of ended the Russian threat in the east in the end. Problem the Germans had were the Americans coming into the war, maybe had an agreement with the Japanese to not attack America but to attack other countries in the far East like British territories which they did but to not attack America or where American troops etc were. Deal with them after other enemies dealt with if Japan does go to war with America in 1941 don't you declare war on them and have Italy do the same. It might just save you from going to war with America while you deal with soviet Union and Britain.

Germany didn't have the strategic bombing resources to do that. Russia could and did retreat beyond their reach. By 1943 the Germans had arguably lost air superiority. It would never win the war. Stalin didn't care about his losses anyway.

Samsonsmasher

RGARDINR wrote: »

I saw that but don't use it on the West like Britain etc. use it just on the east on the soviet Union and only when you reach Moscow, Leningrad etc. Since wasn't used in the western front until then and used just then again the soviet forces Stalin wouldn't of been expecting it. I say would of caused Moscow to fall and Leningrad to have fallen. It wouldn't of meant Britain would of started to use it on the Germans etc. They would think the Nazis would use it on us then. Use it on sovirt union when Leningrad surrounded and at gates of Moscow. I couldn't see them both not falling then. Your own soldiers would of been prepared with gas masks etc. But since wouldn't of been used by the Nazis by that point of time in battle I don't think red army would of been prepared for it.

Hitler was the victim of gas in World War I hence he never authorized it to be used although secret Nazi programs to develop stocks of gas including nerve agent were industrial in scale.
As I said in a previous comment we are dealing here with the historical Hitler not an imaginary figure who could have been more or less evil intelligent strategic etc

RGARDINR

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Hitler was the victim of gas in World War I hence he never authorized it to be used although secret Nazi programs to develop stocks of gas including nerve agent were industrial in scale.
As I said in a previous comment we are dealing here with the historical Hitler not an imaginary figure who could have been more or less evil intelligent strategic etc

I'm not how he could of otherwise, maybe finish off the British at Dunkirk with land forces instead of trying from the air, kept at Britain instead of turning east when he did. I wonder if they had of held off invading Russia for another year and kept at the British and then when Japan attacked America and Germany declared war on America would his generals of said we have to postpone the invasion of Russia until we defeat America and Britain the war may not of happened on the Eastern Front. Another thing they could of done and it was easy to do was just have the Italian army trained as well as the German army, have their soldiers as well trained, offer assistance in regards to this, have officers from Italy trained in Germany in regards to this and then train their soldiers to the same standard as the Germans. The Germans could of used a stronger ally in this regard. If the Italian army had of fought harder against the British in North Africa maybe this would of fallen to the axis before America arrived on the scene and maybe the invasion of Greece wouldn't of turned out the way it did with the Italians.
Also quite simple thing was an agreement with Germans and Italians was if one of the countries was planning on invading a different country to inform each other of this, I'm sure if the Germans knew Italy was going to invade Greece before hand they would of told them not to. Greece was very close to Germany and might have joined the axis if they weren't invaded and offered things in return.

Azza

A couple of factors weighed on the German's when considering using chemical/gas weapons.

Firstly they assumed the Allies would retaliate with similar weapons if the Germans used them first.
On the Western front wind conditions where generally not favorable, mostly the wind would be blow it back towards the Germans. But I think Goering said the main reasons was the German's could not invent gas masks to go on horses and the Germans where hugely reliant on horses for supply and mobility. If gas/chemical weapon usage became widespread they would have no way of protecting their horses.

Italian troops where actually not that badly trained. Rommel held a favorable opinion of them once they where his under command as opposed to Italian leadership. Its more they where badly lead and very poorly equipped. In North Africa no amount of training or leadership improvement would help them deal with the fact that their enemy was completely mechanized and could simply drive rings around them. What armour the Italians had was no match for British tanks or no problem for British anti tank guns to deal with.

Samsonsmasher

RGARDINR wrote: »

I'm not how he could of otherwise, maybe finish off the British at Dunkirk with land forces instead of trying from the air, kept at Britain instead of turning east when he did. I wonder if they had of held off invading Russia for another year and kept at the British and then when Japan attacked America and Germany declared war on America would his generals of said we have to postpone the invasion of Russia until we defeat America and Britain the war may not of happened on the Eastern Front. Another thing they could of done and it was easy to do was just have the Italian army trained as well as the German army, have their soldiers as well trained, offer assistance in regards to this, have officers from Italy trained in Germany in regards to this and then train their soldiers to the same standard as the Germans. The Germans could of used a stronger ally in this regard. If the Italian army had of fought harder against the British in North Africa maybe this would of fallen to the axis before America arrived on the scene and maybe the invasion of Greece wouldn't of turned out the way it did with the Italians.
Also quite simple thing was an agreement with Germans and Italians was if one of the countries was planning on invading a different country to inform each other of this, I'm sure if the Germans knew Italy was going to invade Greece before hand they would of told them not to. Greece was very close to Germany and might have joined the axis if they weren't invaded and offered things in return.

Hitler was not interested in any of this. His sights were on Russia. After the defeat of France and the retreat of the British from Dunkirk he was confident they would accept a peace offer in July 1940 which Churchill rebuffed in favour of doggedly holding out - he was prepared to sacrifice the resources of the Empire to do it wheres Halifax would probably have readily taken the deal. Churchill would not accept England as a second rate power in 1940 but was forced to in 1945. It was not until Anthony Eden was humiliated by the Suez Crisis that British imperialists realized the Empire was on its last legs and the process of decolonization encouraged by both the US and USSR began in earnest.
With a Britain led by Halifax and an agreed peace Germany could concern itself totally with the war in the East.
The delay in attacking Russia in 1941 caused by the Balkans campaign proved fatal because the stiffer than expected resistance encountered at Smolensk convinced Hitler to delay the drive on Moscow because he was anxious to secure the Caucasus oil. He was not convinced of the importance of decapitating the regime by capturing Moscow by Guderian who he actually persuaded to support the priority of the southern sector of the Barbarossa campaign. The renewed drive toward Moscow began in October but had stalled by December when it was thrown back by the Soviet counter offensive with Siberian division freed up due to the Soviet Japanese non aggression pact which was not broken until 1945 after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs and the opportunity to invade Manchuria presented itself.
Hitler aim was to conquer Russia as he imagined the Indians had been conquered by the British and America had been conquered by the white man.
Had he secured a peace deal with Britain it is likely America would have given up trying to intervene militarily in Europe.

Azza

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Hitler was not interested in any of this. His sights were on Russia. After the defeat of France and the retreat of the British from Dunkirk he was confident they would accept a peace offer in July 1940 which Churchill rebuffed in favour of doggedly holding out - he was prepared to sacrifice the resources of the Empire to do it wheres Halifax would probably have readily taken the deal. Churchill would not accept England as a second rate power in 1940 but was forced to in 1945. It was not until Anthony Eden was humiliated by the Suez Crisis that British imperialists realized the Empire was on its last legs and the process of decolonization encouraged by both the US and USSR began in earnest.
With a Britain led by Halifax and an agreed peace Germany could concern itself totally with the war in the East.
The delay in attacking Russia in 1941 caused by the Balkans campaign proved fatal because the stiffer than expected resistance encountered at Smolensk convinced Hitler to delay the drive on Moscow because he was anxious to secure the Caucasus oil. He was not convinced of the importance of decapitating the regime by capturing Moscow by Guderian who he actually persuaded to support the priority of the southern sector of the Barbarossa campaign. The renewed drive toward Moscow began in October but had stalled by December when it was thrown back by the Soviet counter offensive with Siberian division freed up due to the Soviet Japanese non aggression pact which was not broken until 1945 after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs and the opportunity to invade Manchuria presented itself.
Hitler aim was to conquer Russia as he imagined the Indians had been conquered by the British and America had been conquered by the white man.
Had he secured a peace deal with Britain it is likely America would have given up trying to intervene militarily in Europe.

While different leadership in Britain could of led Britain to coming to terms with the Germans, British leadership however was not something within the German's control.

As I said before most historians do not believe the Balkan campaign significantly effected Barbarossa's outcome, the original start date of the 15th of May could not have been met by the Germans even without the Balkan campaign. An usually wet spring in 1941 meant river flood plains where still flooded at this point in some of the area's the Germans would need to pass through and the Germans/Axis allies had not completed the construction of the adequate airfields/logistics needed for the invasion. It probably could of gone ahead sooner than it did without the Balkans campaign maybe up to a week or two earlier, but the delay wasn't what stopped them from taking Moscow as they had already been stopped before winter arrived, it was the collapse of their logistics system and the casualties the Russian's had inflicted on them.

Also the offensive that drove them back had 18 Russian divisions, only 3 of which came from Siberia. The soldiers involved came from all over Russia with the Volga region of Russia providing more than other region.

If Britain and Germany where allies there is no way America gets involved in Europe, however there is a massive difference between Britain signing a peace agreement with Germany as opposed to actually becoming Allies. If Germany declared war on America in the wake of Japan attacking America, I can't see Britain also doing the same. Its possibly if Germany declared war on America, Britain would of reneged on its peace deal with the Germans and rejoined the war on the American side.

RGARDINR

Just wondering in regards the Eastern front. How many more soldiers would the axis have needed to have won there if they had of had them at the start of operation Barbarossa? Would another quarter of a million done? Half a million or more then this? Was always curious how many more they needed to win there. By win I mean make the Soviets sue for peace.

[Deleted User]

RGARDINR wrote: »

Just wondering in regards the Eastern front. How many more soldiers would the axis have needed to have won there if they had of had them at the start of operation Barbarossa? Would another quarter of a million done? Half a million or more then this? Was always curious how many more they needed to win there. By win I mean make the Soviets sue for peace.

I think the Russians would have kept falling back rather than Sue for peace. It's not like the leadership had regards for the civilians, and Russia is massive.

Samsonsmasher

RGARDINR wrote: »

Just wondering in regards the Eastern front. How many more soldiers would the axis have needed to have won there if they had of had them at the start of operation Barbarossa? Would another quarter of a million done? Half a million or more then this? Was always curious how many more they needed to win there. By win I mean make the Soviets sue for peace.

Hundreds of thousands of German troops were needed to garrison their conquests - the ports and coastal defences of Northern and Western Europe the Mediterrean and Balkans and Greek islands and North Africa - because of the threat from Britain. If Halifax had been PM certainly many of those troops would have been freed up to make up for casualties on the Eastern Front.
As I said before Hitler had only one shot - capture Moscow in 1941. Moscow was the nerve centre of the Soviet Union - seize it and decapitate the leadership take Stalin alive or dead and the system would have collapsed.
German victory would still have been a long shot but it is the only chance history would have turned out differently.

Samsonsmasher

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think the Russians would have kept falling back rather than Sue for peace. It's not like the leadership had regards for the civilians, and Russia is massive.

Stalin could not have continued to rule the Soviet Union if Moscow was lost. If the Germans had succeeded in encircling the city Stalin would have probably have shot himself just as Hitler did in Berlin.

[Deleted User]

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Stalin could not have continued to rule the Soviet Union if Moscow was lost. If the Germans had succeeded in encircling the city Stalin would have probably have shot himself just as Hitler did in Berlin.

Hitler was literally surrounded with nowhere to go. Stalin had a multitude of options even if Moscow had fallen including a government in exile.

jackboy

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Stalin could not have continued to rule the Soviet Union if Moscow was lost. If the Germans had succeeded in encircling the city Stalin would have probably have shot himself just as Hitler did in Berlin.

I remember reading before that Stalin had a train ready to go if he thought Moscow was a lost cause. So, he wouldn’t have been captured. Maybe he would have shot himself or someone might have shot him and taken over.

If Moscow fell that winter Leningrad would have likely fallen also soon after. The Germans would surely have taken over the oil resources in the south the following summer and all supplies to the Russians from the west would be cut off. In that scenario Russia may still be in the war but they would be at a shadow of their previous strength.

Samsonsmasher

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hitler was literally surrounded with nowhere to go. Stalin had a multitude of options even if Moscow had fallen including a government in exile.

If Moscow had fallen the Soviet system would have collapsed and Stalin would have been overthrown. The Soviet Union would have disintegrated. Stalin would have been better off shooting himself or else be killed by his own side or be handed over to the Nazis for trial.

[Deleted User]

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

If Moscow had fallen the Soviet system would have collapsed and Stalin would have been overthrown. The Soviet Union would have disintegrated. Stalin would have been better off shooting himself or else be killed by his own side or be handed over to the Nazis for trial.

That's one perspective.

Markcheese

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hitler was literally surrounded with nowhere to go. Stalin had a multitude of options even if Moscow had fallen including a government in exile.

If the the Germans hadn't needed to get involved in greece , and more likely north africa ,they'd have had a bit more fuel and a bit more transport capacity,
So probably would have been able to take moscow ...
The further east the Germans got from moscow the more difficult transport links would have been for the Russians ( Even as german logistics grew more difficult .. ( most rail led to moscow ), and the less of the Russian heart land would have been left to the soviets ,
A Japanese attack on eastern russia , or just the real threat of one would have meant the eastern divisions wouldn't have been able to be released In Numbers for a counter attack on the Germans ...
If leningrad had fallen quickly there'd have been a lot more german troops available for the centre ..
A lot of ifs in there ....

1874

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the Russians would have kept falling back rather than Sue for peace. It's not like the leadership had regards for the civilians, and Russia is massive.

Once Western Russia was occupied (had that even mostly occurred) it would have been game over for the Soviets, they could not simply have just kept falling back, the war would have been over, there would be no way the Soviet Union could have sustained a war and likely no way in which it could have continued as a nation, I think the Soviet Union would have collapsed.

The Germans intention was to lay claim to all of what was west of the Urals. Any Soviet retreat further than that would have ended fullscale war. Had the Soviet Union clung on somehow I doubt any remainign military would have been capable of attacking. The Germans forces could have dealt with that piecemeal over a significantly shorter frontline around Perm, but it wouldnt be a full on war imo. Its possible the Germans would have more strategic capable bombers such as the He-177 or He-277 by then.
But more likely that Russia might have been White Russia (East of the Urals) maybe a demilitarized zone around Perm, and effectively a vassal State of Germany, supplying raw materials, potentially in return for food products.

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Hundreds of thousands of German troops were needed to garrison their conquests - the ports and coastal defences of Northern and Western Europe the Mediterrean and Balkans and Greek islands and North Africa - because of the threat from Britain. If Halifax had been PM certainly many of those troops would have been freed up to make up for casualties on the Eastern Front.
As I said before Hitler had only one shot - capture Moscow in 1941. Moscow was the nerve centre of the Soviet Union - seize it and decapitate the leadership take Stalin alive or dead and the system would have collapsed.
German victory would still have been a long shot but it is the only chance history would have turned out differently.

The Winter of 1941 was one of the worst, had the delay been longer, imo so long while the Soviets were still supplying war materiale to Germany, giving the Germans time to knock Britain out of Europe effectively (capturing her 335k odd expeditionary army troops and keeping them as POWs at Britains expense), ie instead of bombing british cities, drop propaganda on them saying we cant feed your troops, you need to help, but you declared war on us, so we're not relaeasing them and remember Churchill set your own army, tanks and all on you in the 20's (before a citizen army was created), I think Britain might have caved and Hawks like Churchill would not have gotten in.
Britain might have had to sue for peace and may have had very restrictive terms applied regarding access to the Med, maybe rewarding Spain with a German co-occupied Gibralter, out of Malta, that might have knocked Britain out of the Med with either no fight or left them so weakened to be easier to deal with/disregard/access to Iran for oil via shipping.

With Britain not just out of Europe, but out of the Med, that would have a significant effect on encouraging cooperation among other nations without even engaging in military action, Greece, Yugoslavia, which broken up were more of a danger and problem for Germany.

Dealing with Russia, single handed after that, they may have had other resources than horses, they might even have gotten away with using horses, they'd likely have better aircraft than they started out with, more FW190 rather than only Bf109, More Ju88's than Me110 and He111, and possibly longer ranged strategic bombers if they even needed them at that point.
While the Soviets may have been more prepared, I believe at one point the Soviets even offered a truce or there was the potential of peace when they thought they were going to collapse before the Russian winter set in and even after 1941. Stalins suspicions of this even after the Anglo-American alliance was established in Britain left the allies susceptible to breaking up later in the war, but with a knocked out Britain and a USA not even in the war, I think this was a high possibility with huge concessions from the Soviets,

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Stalin could not have continued to rule the Soviet Union if Moscow was lost. If the Germans had succeeded in encircling the city Stalin would have probably have shot himself just as Hitler did in Berlin.

Agreed, had the Germans been more like the Allies in conducting their war, fighting to their strengths and not even engaging in outright war, but a more hostile war diplomacy (basically threats), they might have achieved more (while buying time themselves).
If that occured, even if it took fighting to achieve, I belive it would have weakened Stalin t the extent that he'd have been shot in a basement in the Kremlin, shot and thrown off a train on its way east of the Urals or handed over to the Germans and shot. That imo would have been prior to, during or just after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hitler was literally surrounded with nowhere to go. Stalin had a multitude of options even if Moscow had fallen including a government in exile.

Govts in exile don't hold that much power, unless there is a nation at war directly with the occupier. Britain couldnt do anything for the Poles in exile when the Soviets rolled in, France and Greece was different because the British and French forces were so near and french forces armed with US equipment were allowed/used to participate after D-day. Greece was withing the British sphere of influence of the Med, because the RN and the allies had access everywhere in the Med they saw fit.
There is no way a Govt in exile could have retaken a defeated Soviet Union. I dont think the British and US would have supported it, where to? China? in a timeline where Germany knocks Britain out of a war early by rapid defeat as occured and then have them sue for peace, doesnt look like a war where the USA substantially got involved until too late, either Japan focused on China, no benefit to Soviets or a seperate White Russia expels or shoots Soviet leaders and commisars they capture.

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

If Moscow had fallen the Soviet system would have collapsed and Stalin would have been overthrown. The Soviet Union would have disintegrated. Stalin would have been better off shooting himself or else be killed by his own side or be handed over to the Nazis for trial.

I think that would have happened.

RGARDINR

Yeah I think you have made good points. I think Hitler should of just been a bit more smarter on decisions, just build more allies, let's say Greece and Turkey he got to join the Axis. Got Spain to put pressure on Britain by saying we are going to join the war on the axis side and declare war on you unless you hand us over Gibraltar, if you do that we won't declare war on you and join the axis. If the British do hand it over then don't let their ships etc enter from that point into the med, Spain didn't even have to join the war and Hitler would of know less shipping could of entered that way. They weren't even major things to do just things that would of increased the size of the axis forces with men and materials.

Samsonsmasher

RGARDINR wrote: »

Yeah I think you have made good points. I think Hitler should of just been a bit more smarter on decisions, just build more allies, let's say Greece and Turkey he got to join the Axis. Got Spain to put pressure on Britain by saying we are going to join the war on the axis side and declare war on you unless you hand us over Gibraltar, if you do that we won't declare war on you and join the axis. If the British do hand it over then don't let their ships etc enter from that point into the med, Spain didn't even have to join the war and Hitler would of know less shipping could of entered that way. They weren't even major things to do just things that would of increased the size of the axis forces with men and materials.

Again as I said in a previous post my scenario doesn't allow for a fictional smarter sensible Hitler. It only allows for the actual historical Hitler.

RGARDINR

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Again as I said in a previous post my scenario doesn't allow for a fictional smarter sensible Hitler. It only allows for the actual historical Hitler.

Just wondering then for operation Typhoon if the Germans had of taken say half of army group north and south and used this as well on the attack of Moscow would it have worked, could they have then went onto the defensive in these 2 areas with the other half and used the other 50% of those forces to take Moscow with army group centre they had to take Moscow i think that would of been the death kneel of the soviet Union, especially if they had of got Stalin or killed him in the battle. I say once Moscow is taken the moral collapse of soviet soldiers would of been unreal i say a lot of desertions then.

[Deleted User]

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Again as I said in a previous post my scenario doesn't allow for a fictional smarter sensible Hitler. It only allows for the actual historical Hitler.

Unless you've purchased Distilled media threads are allowed to develop beyond the OP.

Besides actual historical Hitler made the decisions he did. It is impossible for actual historical Hitler to make any other decision than he already made.

RGARDINR

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Unless you've purchased Distilled media threads are allowed to develop beyond the OP.

Besides actual historical Hitler made the decisions he did. It is impossible for actual historical Hitler to make any other decision than he already made.

Exactly

Samsonsmasher

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Unless you've purchased Distilled media threads are allowed to develop beyond the OP.

Besides actual historical Hitler made the decisions he did. It is impossible for actual historical Hitler to make any other decision than he already made.

Any speculative history would have to be informed by Hitler's real world ideology and belief systems the real world mistakes he made and why he made them and the real world limitations of the German war machine. My timeline departs from the real timeline by having Halifax become PM who accepts Hitler's peace offer after the Battle of France. Churchill came close to death in a cavalry charge as a young soldier and of course risked his life to escape Boer captivity and was once struck by a car in New York before he became PM so he might not have been around to put a spanner in the works for Hitler. Halifax backed down to Churchill due to a failure of will even though he had the strong backing. Churchill was simply more vocal charismatic and dominant.

Azza

Well if we are trying to look at alternate histories that could of been in terms of how Hitler could of World War II, I'd try to keep to it to reality/feasibility as close as possible, as in what was achievable with Germany's known capabilities, leadership and ideology with the benefit of hindsight. Otherwise one could literally suggest anything, i.e Hitler should of built a fleet of Star Destoyers and crafted the One Ring and he would of won.

Samsonsmaher suggestion about Britain accepting peace if Halifax became PM has the strong merit that it doesn't require any change or out of character decision on Hitlers part. He didn't want to be at war with Britain and did offer them peace terms. Peace with Britain did not conflict with Hitlers ideology. My issue though with the suggestion is the leadership of Britain is not something Germany could ever have control over.

The Germans did have control over the Halt order at Dunkirk. Had that decision been made to attack ,most of the BEF would have been destroyed at Dunkirk (I've never read or heard any historian say it was beyond the Germans capability to do this), there is a possibility that Britain with no army left to speak of, would of accepted peace terms. Yes had the Germans attacked the British at Dunkirk, the conquest of France might have taken longer and the Germans might have sustained overall higher causalities than they did historically, but the Battle of France had already been decided at that point, the French where beaten. With Britain out of the war, the Battle Of Britain does not have to be fought meaning the Luftwaffe is considerably stronger for Operation Barbarossa, there would also be no war in North Africa which was incredible resource (oil) intensive from a German perspective, no war in North Africa that resources sent there would of been freed up for Barbarossa as well. Finally the naval blockade of Germany/Occupied Europe also would come to an end, allowing Germany to trade for oil, increasing their supply for Barbarossa. Combining these factors, there is a chance that the German's take Moscow in 1941. There would also been no aid sent to the Soviet Union by Britain either, though its debatable how much the aid they sent them historically actually mattered.

saabsaab

Azza wrote: »

Well if we are trying to look at alternate histories that could of been in terms of how Hitler could of World War II, I'd try to keep to it to reality/feasibility as close as possible, as in what was achievable with Germany's known capabilities, leadership and ideology with the benefit of hindsight. Otherwise one could literally suggest anything, i.e Hitler should of built a fleet of Star Destoyers and crafted the One Ring and he would of won.

Samsonsmaher suggestion about Britain accepting peace if Halifax became PM has the strong merit that it doesn't require any change or out of character decision on Hitlers part. He didn't want to be at war with Britain and did offer them peace terms. Peace with Britain did not conflict with Hitlers ideology. My issue though with the suggestion is the leadership of Britain is not something Germany could ever have control over.

The Germans did have control over the Halt order at Dunkirk. Had that decision been made to attack ,most of the BEF would have been destroyed at Dunkirk (I've never read or heard any historian say it was beyond the Germans capability to do this), there is a possibility that Britain with no army left to speak of, would of accepted peace terms. Yes had the Germans attacked the British at Dunkirk, the conquest of France might have taken longer and the Germans might have sustained overall higher causalities than they did historically, but the Battle of France had already been decided at that point, the French where beaten. With Britain out of the war, the Battle Of Britain does not have to be fought meaning the Luftwaffe is considerably stronger for Operation Barbarossa, there would also be no war in North Africa which was incredible resource (oil) intensive from a German perspective, no war in North Africa that resources sent there would of been freed up for Barbarossa as well. Finally the naval blockade of Germany/Occupied Europe also would come to an end, allowing Germany to trade for oil, increasing their supply for Barbarossa. Combining these factors, there is a chance that the German's take Moscow in 1941. There would also been no aid sent to the Soviet Union by Britain either, though its debatable how much the aid they sent them historically actually mattered.

The aid to Russia was vital. In the Moscow defense something like 20% of the tanks were British. Even more so the supplies and material see what Khrushchev said about this later. I read that 90% of the red armys food rations were from US/Britain in 1944.

Azza

saabsaab wrote: »

The aid to Russia was vital. In the Moscow defense something like 20% of the tanks were British. Even more so the supplies and material see what Khrushchev said about this later. I read that 90% of the red armys food rations were from US/Britain in 1944.

That's not quite accurate, the British tanks made up to 30-40% of the Soviet tanks classified as medium or heavy around Moscow but that's not the same as 30-40% of the total tank forces. The British tanks where superior to the vast majority of the tanks the Russians had but its very difficult to say how much of an effect they had.

They reached the front in early December 1941. The German offensive came to a halt on the 5th of the December and the Russians counter attacked on the 8th. The majority of the British tanks (but not all) had seen combat by the 9th, maybe 90 tanks of so of the first 140 available. Its difficult to imagine that so few tanks operating for just a few days could have been the decisive element in stopping the Germans. The Germans had at this point reached their limits of endurance and where exhausted. I don't they could have taken Moscow even had no British tanks not been present. The Soviets counter attacked and pushed the Germans back, but by the time the counter attack occurred the Germans had already given up trying to take Moscow in the short term. The British tanks proved useful in the counter attack no doubt and the Germans where thrown back some way, but the only made up a small part of the force used in the counter attack, an attack which was mishandled so you could argue the full potential of those tanks was wasted.

You could argue that the distance the Russians where able to push the Germans back with the aid of the British tanks could of played a factor in the Germans opting to go South into the Caucasus in 1942 as opposed to trying to take Moscow again but that's mere speculation which opens up a whole load of other questions.

From my understanding of it, Britain supplied more aid in 1942 to the Soviets than America did but it was still a relatively small amount compared to Soviet production and compared to the scale of the aid sent from 1943 onwards by America. However by the 1943 the outcome of the war was already decided and the aid sent to the Soviets simply the Soviets to win quicker and with less losses, but they where going to win regardless at that stage.

Looking back, its difficult to say one way or another whether the aid the Soviets got was critical in allowing them to survive 1941 and 1942. In pure numbers terms the aid sent was very small, but the timing and quality of that aid at critical periods of the war may have been decisive.

feargale

Duke of Schomberg wrote: »

Well its a good job we were up for the fight - unlike DeValera, fueling U-boats and directing German bombers to Belfast. That Fenian was a disgrace to those Free Staters that did take up arms against evil.

Hitler defeated by orange flutes.

Snickers Man

Azza wrote: »

That's not quite accurate, the British tanks made up to 30-40% of the Soviet tanks classified as medium or heavy around Moscow but that's not the same as 30-40% of the total tank forces. The British tanks where superior to the vast majority of the tanks the Russians had but its very difficult to say how much of an effect they had.

Weren't British tanks famously crap, though?

I gather that by the time of D-Day the British had largely switched to using American Sherman tanks, and even they were not considered to be much good compared with the best German tanks that they faced. Many writers of the period point out that the advantage the Shermans had over Tigers and Panthers was merely that there were more of them. Also, that they were more serviceable and repairable and could be patched up and put back into the fight after suffering minor damage more easily than the Germans which had to be abandoned or destroyed by their own side once they suffered any significant damage.

Just a brief anecdote: my late father was a child in England during the War. He used to visit a convalescent centre with his mother where wounded soldiers were recuperating after hospital treatment. He said he once spoke with a wounded British tank driver (he would have been about 10-11 years old) and asked him "Are those Tiger tanks any good?"
"Too ****ing god, son!" was the reply.

1874

Snickers Man wrote: »

Weren't British tanks famously crap, though?

I gather that by the time of D-Day the British had largely switched to using American Sherman tanks, and even they were not considered to be much good compared with the best German tanks that they faced. Many writers of the period point out that the advantage the Shermans had over Tigers and Panthers was merely that there were more of them. Also, that they were more serviceable and repairable and could be patched up and put back into the fight after suffering minor damage more easily than the Germans which had to be abandoned or destroyed by their own side once they suffered any significant damage.

Just a brief anecdote: my late father was a child in England during the War. He used to visit a convalescent centre with his mother where wounded soldiers were recuperating after hospital treatment. He said he once spoke with a wounded British tank driver (he would have been about 10-11 years old) and asked him "Are those Tiger tanks any good?"
"Too ****ing god, son!" was the reply.

The British used a range of tanks, following D-Day, differently armed Shermans to the US 17pdrs?, Cromwells ( & Centaurs), Churchills, they had a challenger built in low numbers and still used Valentine tanks in Italy, so its likely they were using their Grant tanks there also, but Grants were also used in Europe too, I think its just that Shermans get recognised and maybe photographed a lot?
By the end of the war they had Comets, I think fighting had ceased by the time Centurions had arrived