Hitler's Military Interference

AlekSmart · 05-03-2014 07:42PM

quickbeam wrote: »

I think everybody's missing the point here. What the hell kind of job does the OP have that they can spend a whole afternoon online reading up on history? And are there any vacancies?

Easy Peasy.....The OP's a Garda whistelblower to be,on a dry run !

theKillerBite · 05-03-2014 07:43PM

Why did Hitler want to conquer Europe/North Africa & Russia?? How did he expect to control such a vast region, I know he wanted "living space" but occupying such a vast region would have required all the manpower of the country to be on a continuous war footing forever.

ClovenHoof · 05-03-2014 07:47PM

theKillerBite wrote: »

Why did Hitler want to conquer Europe/North Africa & Russia?? How did he expect to control such a vast region, I know he wanted "living space" but occupying such a vast region would have required all the manpower of the country to be on a continuous war footing forever.

oil

Tony EH · 05-03-2014 08:02PM

theKillerBite wrote: »

Why did Hitler want to conquer Europe/North Africa & Russia?? How did he expect to control such a vast region, I know he wanted "living space" but occupying such a vast region would have required all the manpower of the country to be on a continuous war footing forever.

He didn't.

Russia was Hitler's goal. Everything else wasn't even on the cards.

Hitler saw during WWI how Germany was reliant on overseas imports. the blockade of the country had led to incredible hardship and mass starvation. In order to eliminate the need for imports and to strengthen Germany as a true world power, Germany was to forge an empire of sorts from Russian territory, mainly the resource rich Ukraine. The Ukraine had been a desirable spot for the expansion of more than just Germany, which is why Russia was there in the first place.

Hitler, like the vast majority of Europe's leaders, also feared and despised Communism, which he viewed as a world threat, in pretty much the same way as the US viewed her during the cold war. But, Hitler intertwined Communists, Socialists, Jews and others into a semi-monolithic target. A target he believed was poised to destroy Europe, or at least mold it into a Soviet of some description.

darkpagandeath · 05-03-2014 08:19PM

Tony EH wrote: »

There's no such thing as a "nazi" army.

So a paramilitary group under the direct control of Hitler I.E Nazis was not an army ? Do you even know who the SS were ?

titan18 · 05-03-2014 08:22PM

theKillerBite wrote: »

Why did Hitler want to conquer Europe/North Africa & Russia?? How did he expect to control such a vast region, I know he wanted "living space" but occupying such a vast region would have required all the manpower of the country to be on a continuous war footing forever.

North Africa was mainly an Italian theatre, Germany only really had to come in cos the Italians were useless and it was a major strategic point for Britain.

Russia were a threat to any expansion into Eastern Europe past Poland, and even if Germany hadn't attacked them so early, war would have eventually happened. The Molotov - Ribbentrop pact was really just a delay.

They'd have probably defeated Britain if they kept the war going there and delayed the Soviet invasion. US would more than likely have eventually entered the war even without Japan, but Germany would have been in a very strong position by that point.

Hitler lost the war alright with his interference, but not sure how long a German empire would have lasted with a war against Russia and the US along with internal resistance

Hootanany · 05-03-2014 08:24PM

Incarnations wrote: »

Decided to spend my afternoon in work reading about Hitler on wikipedia. From what I've read it seems that Germany would have had a good chance to win world war 2 if had had just let his generals do their jobs.

The major fukc up seemed to be his order to delay the advance to Moscow. Had they not delayed they could well have defeated the Soviet Union and vastly increased their resources in doing so.

So do you think Germany would have won the war if Hitler didn't interfere so much with the military tactical decisions ?

Civil service by any chance

Tony EH · 05-03-2014 08:40PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So a paramilitary group under the direct control of Hitler I.E Nazis was not an army ? Do you even know who the SS were ?

The Waffen SS were not the same entity as the Allgemeine SS and while their nominal head was Himmler since its inception, they were subordinated to the OKW (Oberkommando Der Wehrmacht).

While the Schutzstaffel (SS) were created as a paramilitary organisation in the 20s as a small security body for Hitler and refined in the 30's, their offshoot, the Waffen SS had very different structures and reasons for being.

By 1942, the Waffen SS had long since ceased to be even remotely connected to the original organisation of the late 30's.

Even still, the Waffen SS were not a "nazi" army. It's members did not have to be in the party and in fact it drew personnel from all over Europe. The majority of men who passe through the ranks of the Waffen SS weren't even German and their political affiliations ranged from neutral, to conservative, to die hard National Socialist.

If there's one political ideal that Waffen SS soldiers agreed upon, it was anti Communism.

Cookie_Monster · 05-03-2014 08:54PM

It's all the incompetent Italian's fault

Andrew_Doran · 05-03-2014 10:10PM

Gmol wrote: »

Think the fact [Hitler] declared war on America was the main thing. Once they got their act together they would have defeated Germany.

Hmm. I'm not so sure. Don't know what to think really, other than the Soviet contribution to the war is so underplayed. Killed/missing in WW-II:

Soviet Union 10,725,345
Third Reich 5,533,000
British Empire 580,497
United States 318,274

Gmol · 05-03-2014 10:21PM

Andrew_Doran wrote: »

Hmm. I'm not so sure. Don't know what to think really, other than the Soviet contribution to the war is so underplayed. Killed/missing in WW-II:

Soviet Union 10,725,345
Third Reich 5,533,000
British Empire 580,497
United States 318,274

Russia suffered terribly in the war but Hitler s main mistake was to declare war on America, when they would have fully mobilised they would have defeated Germany. They had more capability. Also if the intention was to invade Russia, opening 2 fronts was crazy.

Tony EH · 05-03-2014 11:16PM

Hitler only opened one front. The Eastern front.

Britain and France declared war on Germany. Not the other way round.

As for Hitler declaring war on America, he was really only putting into effect a situation that already existed to a very large degree. The US had been pushing her Atlantic zones of influence further and further eastwards and had been depth charging German U-Boats, who had fired on US vessels, albeit in error as Hitler had put strict orders in place not to do so. She had also been supplying Germany's enemies with arms and material.

Hitler had also hoped to bring Japan into the Russian conflict with his declaration of war on the US. In December 1941, Barbarossa had severely run out of steam and the Wehrmacht had floundered. Hitler's idea that the "whole rotten edifice" of Communism would come crashing down if he "kicked in the door" proved to be false and Germany was in serious trouble. If Japan could be brought into the conflict, by reciprocating Hitlers gesture, and tie up Russian troops east of the Urals, it would be easier to get German offensives going again.

Unfortunately for Hitler, the Japanese couldn't afford to commit the necessary troops to an unwanted Russian campaign.

Either way, Hitler knew that the US was VERY eager to get involved in the war, regardless of who called it first and essentially just switched on the light when everybody was in the room.

DazMarz · 05-03-2014 11:35PM

Several huge errors made by Hitler:

-Never fully including Japan in his plans or promising them territorial gains. Had the Japanese invaded the western USSR as the German armies attacked from the East, the USSR could easily have fallen. Why? The Soviets moved much of their production and manufacturing into the western regions in Siberia and so on. Beyond the reach of the Germans. Had Hitler been able to get the Japanese to invade the USSR, the Soviets would have had nowhere to move their production facilities and the Soviet war machine could have been crippled in a pincer movement from the Germans in the East and the Japanese in the West.

-Launching Operation Barbarossa too late (22nd June, 1942), and as a result the German armies would get bogged down in the bitter Russian winters. The Germans ground to a halt outside the cities of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad through the winter of '42/'43. Had Barbarossa started a few months earlier, say in March or February, there is a chance that the cities would have fallen as the Germans would have possibly advanced further.

-Failing to take Stalingrad and thus failing to take the oil fields in and around Baku.

-Declaring war on the United States and bringing their huge economic, production and military power into the war on the side of the Allies. The USA always leaned towards supporting Britain and the Allies, but public opinion in the USA was to stay out of the war. Until the Japanese launched their attack on Pearl Harbour. Then, when Japan's ally Germany declared war, the Americans swung into action and ultimately crushed the Japanese and played a role in defeating the Germans (the Soviets did most of the battling against the Germans and would have defeated them anyway, regardless of intervention from America/Britain; it just would have taken longer).

-Using up huge amounts of resources and manpower on the Holocaust that could have been used to fighting the war. Thousands of Totenkompfverbande SS troops were stationed in concentration/death camps. Raw materials were used to construct and operate the camps. If all of that was instead pushed into battling the Soviets, it would probably have had negligible effects, but who knows?

-Failing to secure air supremacy over the skies of Europe. The Luftwaffe failed in its attempts to dominate the skies above Europe, especially in the west where the RAF had great successes. Thus, Operation Sealion (the planned invasion of Great Britain) could never materialise. Had the Germans established air supremacy, Sealion could have gone ahead, and the chance of at least damaging Britain severely would have been a reality. As it was, the Germans never succeeded and this failure gave a huge boon to the Allied cause.

-Failure to respond in kind to the British Commandos. The British Commando units were very active in the war, going behind enemy lines in covert incursion tactics. Sabotaging infrastructure, communications, supply lines, defences and materiel. These harassing measures damaged the German war effort and drained morale. The Germans had no real comparable units and had they used similar units and performed similar missions, it would have helped their effort whilst damaging the Allied effort.

Red Pepper · 05-03-2014 11:43PM

DazMarz wrote: »

Several huge errors made by Hitler:

-Launching Operation Barbarossa too late (22nd June, 1942), and as a result the German armies would get bogged down in the bitter Russian winters. The Germans ground to a halt outside the cities of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad through the winter of '42/'43. Had Barbarossa started a few months earlier, say in March or February, there is a chance that the cities would have fallen as the Germans would have possibly advanced further.

Barbarossa was 1941 but yes this was a huge reason for Hitler's defeat. The invasion of Russia started 8 weeks later than originally planned. He still had them on their knees when the harsh Russian winter halted the German progress.

If he had even waited until 1942 to invade Russia, things could have been so different - he could have consolidated Europe and escalated the Blitz and U-Boat campaign.

From all accounts the UK politicians were pressing Churchill for a peace treaty in 1942 when Hitler turned his attention eastward. At one point, England had only a few weeks of food and supplies.

tomwaterford · 06-03-2014 12:03AM

Andrew_Doran wrote: »

Hmm. I'm not so sure. Don't know what to think really, other than the Soviet contribution to the war is so underplayed. Killed/missing in WW-II:

Soviet Union 10,725,345
Third Reich 5,533,000
British Empire 580,497
United States 318,274

this not said anywhere near enough...as much as people don't like Russia with its carry on in Ukraine and the cold war...thet suffered horrendous at the hands of the germans and were every bit as important if not more so than britin and the us in the defeat of Germany in ww2

dj jarvis · 06-03-2014 12:04AM

Tony EH wrote: »

There's no such thing as a "nazi" army.

yea there was , the SA , the SS , and the Wehrmacht were directly controlled by the Nazis , the entire German fighting force , land sea and air were an Nazi army.

maybe a small percentage were professional soldiers , but they were a Nazi controlled army , so ergo , a Nazi army

Tony EH · 06-03-2014 12:05AM

DazMarz wrote: »

-Launching Operation Barbarossa too late (22nd June, 1942), and as a result the German armies would get bogged down in the bitter Russian winters. The Germans ground to a halt outside the cities of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad through the winter of '42/'43. Had Barbarossa started a few months earlier, say in March or February, there is a chance that the cities would have fallen as the Germans would have possibly advanced further.

They may have advanced a bit further, but the over all effect would have been minimal. Even if Barbarossa had been launched earlier, the Germans just didn't have enough men or resources to take the cities in question. Moscow and Leningrad would not have been taken in tandem. There would have to have been a choice made. Personally, I think Moscow would have been the target. But taking Moscow would not have been an easy task even in August/September and in fact could still have failed, resulting in massive losses for the Germans.

There's a mistaken idea that the Germans had everything their own way during Barbarossa, but the facts are that they didn't. It was a long, hard, fight for every inch gained at every turn.

DazMarz wrote: »

-Using up huge amounts of resources and manpower on the Holocaust that could have been used to fighting the war. Thousands of Totenkompfverbande SS troops were stationed in concentration/death camps. Raw materials were used to construct and operate the camps. If all of that was instead pushed into battling the Soviets, it would probably have had negligible effects, but who knows?

Again, I'll say the the resources devoted to the National Socialists racial plans were marginal and of no effect to their war effort. The troops used to guard the concentration camps were largely unfit for frontline action, convalescing, cashiered or reservists. There weren't quality troops assigned to likes of Treblinka. In addition, a large number of concentration camp guards were drawn from other nations, whom Hitler had determined were "on side" enough. Even the freight devoted to the camps were an extreme minority and would have turned any tides.

DazMarz wrote: »

-Failing to secure air supremacy over the skies of Europe. The Luftwaffe failed in its attempts to dominate the skies above Europe, especially in the west where the RAF had great successes. Thus, Operation Sealion (the planned invasion of Great Britain) could never materialise. Had the Germans established air supremacy, Sealion could have gone ahead, and the chance of at least damaging Britain severely would have been a reality. As it was, the Germans never succeeded and this failure gave a huge boon to the Allied cause.

The lack of "operation Sealion" wasn't due to the Luftwaffe's failure to knock out the RAF (something that was actually impossible to achieve), it was due to the fact that the Germans had no real way to cross the channel and challenge the British in any meaningful way. They certainly were NOT going to do on the Rhine barges they had at the Pas De Callais. Any attempt to cross the Channel in those would have ended in absolute disaster. The Royal Navy would have a field day. Plus Hitler's heart was never really in it. Even in September, there was no real plan for Sealion. It was a paper proposition. Nothing more and in Hitler's own terms was to be "carried out, if necessary..." By the time of the height of the Battle of Britain, Hitler had already reversed back to his original eastern front fixation.

Tony EH · 06-03-2014 12:15AM

dj jarvis wrote: »

yea there was , the SA , the SS , and the Wehrmacht were directly controlled by the Nazis , the entire German fighting force , land sea and air were an Nazi army.

maybe a small percentage were professional soldiers , but they were a Nazi controlled army , so ergo , a Nazi army

Wrong, they were a GERMAN army. The National Socialists were the government of the day, that's all.

That the nazis used the country's forces for their ends is neither here nor there.

It simply silly and misleading to call the men who fought in the Wehrmacht a "nazi" army.

By the way the SA were never part of any professional army and in fact were eliminated (although not formally liquidated) a year after the nazis came to power, precisely because they weren't in direct control of them and Ernst Rohm had designs on leadership himself.

06-03-2014 02:08AM

Tony EH wrote: »

Wrong, they were a GERMAN army. The National Socialists were the government of the day, that's all.

That the nazis used the country's forces for their ends is neither here nor there.

It simply silly and misleading to call the men who fought in the Wehrmacht a "nazi" army.

I don't think that's entirely correct. I mean sure, individual Wehrmacht soldiers may not privately have been members of the Nazi party, voted for the Nazi party, or even have given a flying fcuk about the Nazi party. (More of the SS would be active party members and consciously supporting of that ideology, but that's another story).

As government employees, regardless of what party is in office, the role of every standing army is the defense of the state and its borders, as well as the best interests of people within it as dictated by the sitting government.

So when that army invades the Soviet Union to advance the cause of the Nazi party and act in the interests of the Nazi party, it becomes a Nazi army. They are not doing it because the individual soldiers all think it's great crack or anything, they are doing it for the forced advancement of Nazism. That was the motivation behind Barbarossa after all.

Tony EH · 06-03-2014 02:31AM

Armies invade other countries all the time to advance their government's causes and they've been doing that for generations.

Did the US Army's invasion of Iraq make them a Republican Army? Or even a NeoCon Army. No, of course not.

And yes the US may have come up with some bull**** reason to invade Iraq, but Hitler justified his invasion of Russia too and every other country that the German army invaded and that never included the "advancement of nazism", because he quite rightly knew that that wouldn't wash. So the usual trope protecting the country was invoked at every turn.

This satisfied some in the Wehrmacht, and no doubt was found deeply unsatisfactory to others, but seeing that a large proportion of Germany (like Europe as a whole) was anti-Communist, such a reason would have sufficed. Many German soldiers marched into Russia genuinely believing that they were liberating its people from Stalin's yoke. The fact that they were greeted as liberators by many Russians justified that opinion.

But armies do not have a say in what or where they are told to attack by the government of the day. They subordinate any political aspirations and belief to that of the government of the day.

And that's the rub. The military don't get a say.

In addition, the vast majority of the Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine and even the SS were not part of party.

Cothrom na Feinne · 06-03-2014 02:37AM

The fascists saved Europe from Communism which imo was a greater social evil than fascism. One has to ask whether the Korean War would have happened or the Vietnam War had it not been for those Commies?
It was a mistake going to war with Germany. The Jews would probably not have been killed had it not been for it. They would have just been resettled in the East as was planned.

06-03-2014 02:42AM

DazMarz wrote: »

Several huge errors made by Hitler:

-Never fully including Japan in his plans or promising them territorial gains. Had the Japanese invaded the western USSR as the German armies attacked from the East, the USSR could easily have fallen. Why? The Soviets moved much of their production and manufacturing into the western regions in Siberia and so on. Beyond the reach of the Germans. Had Hitler been able to get the Japanese to invade the USSR, the Soviets would have had nowhere to move their production facilities and the Soviet war machine could have been crippled in a pincer movement from the Germans in the East and the Japanese in the West.

That was not "an error". The Japanese were never going to challenge the Soviet Union. They were terrified of them. There was a lot of bad blood between the countries dating back to Czarist times. And remember, fighting a USSR tank division defending their own home on the flat open steppes of Siberia/China/Mongolia in winter is an absolute universe away from fighting conscripted British colonial occupiers in the jungles of south east Asia.

The fact is that prior to WW2 the Japanese had ALREADY gone up against the Soviets in another less well known war in the 1930's after Mongolia became the second communist country. Georgi Zhukov who orchestrated the defeat of Germany was sent to deal with them. Their defeat was total and absolute.

Captured Japanese were not treated as soldiers. They were placed under arrest by Soviet police criminal investigators, and put on trial. Not for "war crimes", just as common crooks. Murder, destruction of state property, and so on.

Zhukov also took part in the criminal trials against them. He was as you might imagine quite a tough and sometimes brutal man. He was allowed to rant and swear at the Japanese officers on trial without sanction. "Fcuk you, fcuk your country, and fcuk your emperor, you are no soldier. A soldier defends his people. You are a thousand miles from your country butchering innocent people. You are going to swing for this". And swing for it they did.

I don't remember the exact quotes but that was more or less the size of it. It wasn't just the military defeat, it was the justice handed out afterwards and the prospect of not a political but a criminal trial that made sure the Japanese never set foot on Russian soil again.

06-03-2014 03:00AM

Tony EH wrote: »

Hitler justified his invasion of Russia too and every other country that the German army invaded and that never included the "advancement of nazism",

In addition, the vast majority of the Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine and even the SS were not part of party.

In every country the Germans invaded they rounded up, arrested, deported, and brutally murdered every communist, Jew, Jehovah's Witness, trade union organizer, Gypsy/Roma, and homosexual they could lay their hands on based on the belief that they were inferior to the master race and a potential drain on the gene pool.

Sorry man, but I would kinda describe that as the "advancement of Nazism" if you don't mind. I never said the individuals carrying out these things were card carrying members of the party, but by Christ they were every bit as brutal and savage to the Jews and gays and communists of Belgium and Holland as they were to those in Latvia or Poland.

You don't have to be a "party member" to gas a six year old just 'cos his parents had him circumcised, but the party's interests get served nonetheless.

stefan idiot jones · 06-03-2014 04:48AM

Best thread in weeks.

Russia took the brunt of the losses and that was a lot to do with the delaying of the Allies while preparing for the Normandy landings.

Poor ole Josef was played quite a bit while his men were used as cannon fodder in the east while Uncle Sam and his loud countrymen came in to save the day.

Saying that, God help the German troops that were captured by Russia.
They didn't fare too well afterwards.

One of Hitlers blindspots was he was fixated on capturing Stalingrad because of it's name and what it stood for as well as opening up access to the Steppes and the valuable oilfields.

Fratton Fred · 06-03-2014 08:37AM

stefan idiot jones wrote: »

Best thread in weeks.

Russia took the brunt of the losses and that was a lot to do with the delaying of the Allies while preparing for the Normandy landings.

Poor ole Josef was played quite a bit while his men were used as cannon fodder in the east while Uncle Sam and his loud countrymen came in to save the day.

Russia lost so many men thanks to a complete lack of military tactics, thanks to Stalin's purges. From Kursk onwards, every battle they won cost them dearly because they simply threw overwhelming numbers at the Germans.

If overload had been launched earlier it would most likely have failed and lengthened the war further.

Tony EH · 06-03-2014 10:48AM

Cothrom na Feinne wrote: »

The fascists saved Europe from Communism which imo was a greater social evil than fascism.

Actually, it can be argued that the German war against Russia brought the Communists deeper into Europe than would have happened without it. It's unclear whether Communism would have had that advanced a grip on eastern Europe if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia. Hitler certainly believed that Russia was gearing up for an attack of some description, but it is not certain that this was the case. Although, the Russians definitely didn't shy away from invading other countries when it suited them, as was shown in the Baltics and Poland.

It can also be argued that it was the western allies who stemmed the flow of Communism. D-Day was more about getting a western influence on the continent before before the Russians had advanced too far into, or beyond, Germany rather that about defeating the Germans. That was already a given. The writing was on the wall to most keen observers, after the battle of Kursk had put a permanent end to German advancement eastwards and the subsequent gains made by the Russians afterwards had cemented in allied strategic minds that the only way left to go for the Germans was backwards. By the time of Bagration and the annihilation of Army Group Centre, a certain desperation set into the western allies and the commitment to reach Berlin solidified all the more, lest the Russians sweep on through Germany and perhaps beyond, which was something that some on the western allied had seriously considered.

Tony EH · 06-03-2014 11:20AM

Deleted User wrote: »

In every country the Germans invaded they rounded up, arrested, deported, and brutally murdered every communist, Jew, Jehovah's Witness, trade union organizer, Gypsy/Roma, and homosexual

You forgot socialist

That may have been the end game somewhat, but the war was definitely not sold to ANYBODY on that basis. The men of the Wehrmacht went to war to "protect the Fatherland", whatever that may have meant to each individual. As far as the average German Landser was concerned, Germany was wholly justified in her war against Britain and France, as they had declared war on them. With Russia, it was "stopping Communism" that was sold to them and there would have been plenty of people, not only in Germany, but throughout Europe that would have agreed wholeheartedly with that move.

In the end, it's fair to say that the German soldier was left, really, with no idea what the hell he was actually fighting for.

One thing is for sure, like 99% of the fighting men and women of WWII, they would much rather have stayed at home.

cerastes · 06-03-2014 11:37AM

topper75 wrote: »

I can't accept that the dogged determination and sheer bloody mindedness shown by Stalin/the red army at Stalingrad was all mustered simply because Hitler ordered his generals to hold up for a little while.

Stalin was at or past breaking point from what I read, and ready to sue for peace when the Germans were at the gates of Moscow. Someone else kept things together and then didnt get the credit I think, probably rubbed out afterwards for it too.

burnhardlanger wrote: »

Wouldn't the US have started to annihilate Germany into a surrender with their new fancy atom bombs anyway?

MAybe, maybe not, they relied on some captured German Uranium at some point and there may not have been the willingness to drop an A-bomb on Europe unless in the face of a major defeat?

banquo wrote: »

Hitler wasn't all bad. In fairness, he did kill Hitler.

I was thinking, it was unfortunate he didnt kill Hitler earlier in the war, that may not have been a good turn of history, as the Nazis (Third Reich) may still have existed today, maybe if someone had killed him earlier still, before the rise of the Nazi party, or maybe even that would have made things worse? Rohms Germany could have been worse, not focused on the Jewish question, and more practical militarily? The General Staff were always fearful of going to war anyway, even France, let alone Russia.

Hubris overtook them, even France wasn't the cake walk it was made out to be.

DazMarz wrote: »

Several huge errors made by Hitler:

-Never fully including Japan in his plans or promising them territorial gains. Had the Japanese invaded the western USSR as the German armies attacked from the East, the USSR could easily have fallen. Why? The Soviets moved much of their production and manufacturing into the western regions in Siberia and so on. Beyond the reach of the Germans. Had Hitler been able to get the Japanese to invade the USSR, the Soviets would have had nowhere to move their production facilities and the Soviet war machine could have been crippled in a pincer movement from the Germans in the East and the Japanese in the West.

-Launching Operation Barbarossa too late (22nd June, 1942), and as a result the German armies would get bogged down in the bitter Russian winters. The Germans ground to a halt outside the cities of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad through the winter of '42/'43. Had Barbarossa started a few months earlier, say in March or February, there is a chance that the cities would have fallen as the Germans would have possibly advanced further.

-Failing to take Stalingrad and thus failing to take the oil fields in and around Baku.

Even if I agree with a few things you say

The Germans invade from the east?
And
The Japanese, invade from the West???
Im not sure what kind of topsy turvy world you live in,

it sounds mad, but it might just have worked, hmmm.

No matter how well, or bad (that it could have been better) you think history turned out, it turned out right, the way it was meant to.
If it hadnt, well then you are living in another reality, actually another reality, so is boards the conduit between our realities? does the thousand year Reich still exist there?

It could have turned out better, or worse.
If had been any different, we wouldn't be speaking German, we simply would likely never have existed. Like that episode of the Simpsons where Homer goes back in time.

Tony EH · 06-03-2014 11:48AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Russia lost so many men thanks to a complete lack of military tactics, thanks to Stalin's purges. From Kursk onwards, every battle they won cost them dearly because they simply threw overwhelming numbers at the Germans.

You have it a little backwards there.

Russian losses were devastating in the early battles, because Russian tactics were lacking and they believed that pouring overwhelming numbers of men and tanks into the fray would turn the battle.

However, in the latter battles of the war, the Russians had learned somewhat to emulated the Germans in their field tactics. The likes of Operation Bagration is a world away from the early Russian military operations.

They always had the upper hand in men and material, but they were much less wasteful of those resources after 1942/3.

Wibbs · 06-03-2014 12:36PM

DazMarz wrote: »

-Failing to secure air supremacy over the skies of Europe. The Luftwaffe failed in its attempts to dominate the skies above Europe, especially in the west where the RAF had great successes. Thus, Operation Sealion (the planned invasion of Great Britain) could never materialise. Had the Germans established air supremacy, Sealion could have gone ahead, and the chance of at least damaging Britain severely would have been a reality. As it was, the Germans never succeeded and this failure gave a huge boon to the Allied cause.

Actually they had air supremacy over mainland Europe for a goodly portion of the war. Secondly the Battle of Britain was doomed to be a German loss from the outset. Contrary to the subsequent Spitfires over the white cliffs of Dover stuff(Hurricanes actually accounted for the majority of "kills"), the UK was in little to no danger of losing the BoB. While the Luftwaffe was larger, they were on parity with fighter planes and the British increased production throughout the battle, so had more by the end. They were fighting over home turf, whereas the Germans had little more than minutes of fuel over the UK to fight off attacks. If they bailed out they were lost as POWs, whereas a British pilot might be up again the same day.

The German high command knew this. Indeed that's one reason they gave that fat oaf Goering the chance to "prove" his Luftwaffe as he claimed he could subdue the UK.

Problem was the Luftwaffe was more an extension of the army, it was a tactical force, not a strategic one. If the channel hadn't been there they would have likely slaughtered the British army. They had run rings around them in Europe.

But let's imagine the Germans had won the BoB. Now what? They were stuck with glorified canal barges to get their army across the channel. Sitting ducks time for the Royal Navy. Though... maybe not. After all the Germans had won the "battle of the channel". Through bombing and torpedo attacks the channel ports and lanes were pretty much off limits to British shipping. The risks were considered too high, as if you were sailing anything other than a rowboat through the channel, you were either gonna have a Stuka stick a bomb down your funnel, or a MTB shove a torpedo up your bum. That said if a real invasion was on, no doubt the RN would have not worried about risks.

They could have done an airborne assault on southern Britain, but without tanks and heavy guns they would have been in real trouble.

Even if that had succeeded and they captured some of southern England, the British would have just moved north and could mount constant air and land attacks on any German held areas.

So in the end while the young men fighting in the skies of Britain were the Few and bloody brave, they were on the winning side from the get go(even if they didn't realise it).

Hitler's Military Interference

Comments