[magicbastarder]

Originally Posted by V8 Interceptor

Some say Hitler didn't even know all that much about the death camps and that Himmler orchestrated the entire scheme himself.

am i the only one for whom this plays in my head in a jeremy clarkson voice?

[1874]

The conflict with the Soviets was always on the cards, Stalin knew that and so did Hitler, Hitler sought it. I think the Soviet view was to hope/let the western democracies slug it out with Germany, with the outcome of weakening all, so the Communist International could take hold in Europe at least. Some in the Soviet Union knew an attack was coming when it started and likely knew it would have come at some point if Barbarossa had not started when it did. Stalin did buy time and had the Germans taken such an approach themselves or had they been able to, they may have come out on top.



If the Germans took a more defensive approach to fend off any Soviet pre-emptive strike in Eastern Europe and dealt with Great Britain in the way and numbers they had put into Barbarossa, while not as straightforward they may very likely have knocked them out of any prolonged war, this would have meant no carpet bombing of Germany by the RAF later on or any bases or reason for the US to even be there.


By isolating and weakening Britain at sea nearby to her waters earlier on (mining and submarines) and not making wasteful air attacks on cities and focus on the RAF and Radar sites, even though the Germans both didnt have that many subs at the start of the war and their strategic air force capability was limited by aircraft types available, it may have been more possible to defeat the UK and more valuable to have made more limited attacks to the British mainland rather than committing fully to an all out onslaught such as the Battle of Britain as it occurred, which consumed valuable men, material and resources and can be lost and then give hope to potential allies.
Also, not sending out small groups of Capital ships into the Atlantic (without air or other support to at least harry or attempt to concern the RN enough from losing ships as they had to Japan in the East).
Doing so put these ships at more risk of being sunk (ie Bismark and small number of ships that accompanied her). The Bismark could have been used within range of the European mainland coast and most likely could have made a bigger impact on the RN by destroying them directly or drawing them into being attacked by air by the Luftwaffe (although that level of combined use of forces didnt exist in Germany, with headstrong leadership intent on pursuing their own personal agendas).



(They also could have limited their large shipbuilding projects from earlier and developed more capable subs).
Alongside dealing with Great Britain in the Med, mainly taking out Malta and pouring resources into a North African campaign.


Victories there before British land forces commanders were changed, and mainly before the British had an opportunity to turn around any losses (the British in a sense traded land and time like the Soviets because the Germans in North Africa didnt have the resources to outright destroy their enemy. Had they been supplied to do so, then that would likely have provided Germany ultimately with access to oil through what is now Syria/Iraq and Iran, and a route through the Suez.


Germany had some connections with Japan and could have made more diplomatic efforts to dissuade them from any attack on the US which could have been predicted. By offering the Japanese to participate in attacks on British dependancies/ thereby isolating Australia & NZ or at least causing concern for their own to defence to provide troops/support to Britain in her backgarden, while also still not outright provoking the USA into a full conflict by attacking them, which was generally opposed in the US.



Potential successes against the British in North Africa, could have provided the Germans a better means to either attack the Soviet union later from a better situation, ie either Great Britain knocked out of any extended war, Possibly with a second route through the Caucasus, or even just the threat of that to divert Soviet forces with the main route as per Barbarossa, and even a 3rd route from the East by supporting the Japanese with a limited attack on Soviet soil and a naval blockade.


In that situation, I think the Soviet Union would have capitulated.


Even if prior to such a scenario had the Soviets preemtively attacked in Eastern Europe, its likely they would be no better prepared for it themselves than the Germans were, their equipment and organisation was likely worse, morale and the lack of incentive to act with initiative (stymied by the late 30's purges of the army)
That itself would give good grounds for Germany to launch its own intended attack at any time that suited following destroying any incoming assault by the Soviets.

Its possible such a follow on Barbarossa2 may not even have been opposed in the US as they themselves werent exactly pro communist. The Soviets may have turned on themselves and Stalin might have been shot in some basement of the Kremlin by 1944.


As bad as the Soviets were, fortunately for the rest of us the Germans weren't so organised in cooperative actions with the Japanese, and that they seemed to over extend themselves in every theatre, and to some extent even that they weakened the Soviets and that the war was so brutal that that in itself prevented the Soviets from making any dash to the coast of France, either earlier on and even later when they were able.



Having said that, certain German commanders may have been able to do it, ie win what came to be described as WW2, Hitlers meddling in matters on numerous occasions hindered that, his ideology prevented at different points opportunities to not lose men and materiel by forcing Generals to command their units to stand their ground and fight to the last, rather than not losing men and equipment which was not sustainable.



I think it could have been possible for them to win with the forces they had at their disposal from Sept 1939, had they done things differently.

[Samsonsmasher]

Originally Posted by V8 Interceptor

Ah the man from Del Monte! Yes I thought I'd posted a reply but must've hit something. I'll try again.


I'm not so sure about that Sir. The Fuhrer had no intention of fighting what became the western Allies. He was only looking east.

It was Prime Minister Churchill who wanted to fight no matter what.

Hitler didn't want to and wanted to avoid it. He gambled that the Western Allies would roll over when he and Stalin invaded Poland. British and France could do little and did practically nothing about Poland during the phoney war period. After the Fall of France as Max Hastings argues if Hitler had not gone ahead with a direct attack on Britain but instead concentrated on defeating the Allies in North Africa and the Mediterranean Churchill's belicose rhetoric might not have won the British people over. Without the Battle of Britain the stubborn resistance of the British might not have been stoked enough. Hitler's believed in aggression so he did not hold back. If anyone else but Churchill was leader Britain would have thrown in the towel even before that.

[paul71]

[QUOTE=JJayoo;115645818]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Yeah, but conversely if the British had developed jet aircvraft earlier than they did, the war might have take a different and shorter course.
]


But the nazis did develope jet Aircraft during the war, the British didn't I do t really see your point.

What? The British did develop jet during the war. The Gloster Meteor first flew in 1943 and saw combat in 1944 and 1945.

The Americans and the Japanese also had jet technology during the war and Lockheed P-80 entered service before the end of the war but saw no combat.

The jet engine was invented in Britain by Frank Whittle in 1930.

[paul71]

[QUOTE=Del2005;115645928]

Originally Posted by JJayoo

The British did develop a jet during the war, look up Frank Whittle. It was a more complex design so wasn't flyable during the early war, they where used to hunt down V1s later on in the war.

Sorry Del I did not see your reply to the earlier poster and I repeated your point.

[V8 Interceptor]

Originally Posted by magicbastarder

am i the only one for whom this plays in my head in a jeremy clarkson voice?

Classic!

[beauf]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

There's an argument, but I'm not sure how strong it is. Hitler wasn't terribly interested developing atomic weapons; the German programme started late and was seriously under-resourced because Hitler gave it a low priority. So even if European Jewish physicists had remained in Europe and were available to the support the programme, he might not have made use of them.

The bigger difference would have been on the other side; Teller, etc, would not have been available to the US atomic programme. But it would still probably have been a bigger, earlier and better-resourced programme than anything the Germans were doing.

I could be wrong but I think the Manhattan project was one of the most expensive of the war. B29 was another.

So when you consider resources that's also a critical factor.

[beauf]

Originally Posted by JJayoo

They developed a jet powered plane and a missile that was capable of hitting the UK, if these had been developed at the beginning of the war, and not the end, they would have taken dominated any aerial fighting.

Unfortunately neither was useful for defeating a land army, that's was overrunning your bases and factories. Neither allowed you to stop the allies war production. Germany had no strategic weapons like heavy bombers. The jets were unreliable and vulnerable landing, and taking off, and on the ground and at slow speed in the air. Around 100 were shot down in the air.

Germany (Hitler) simply over extended itself. His increasing interference caused catastrophic errors. For example He wanted to use the 262 as a bomber originally. Being rash and unpredictable and the sucker punch only gets you so far.

Eventually you will be ground down by an opponent with more resources.

[Samsonsmasher]

Originally Posted by magicbastarder

Isn't there an argument that if Hitler had not hated the Jews, he'd have had the Bomb first because multiple Jewish physicists wouldn't have fled?

Nuclear physics was dismissed as "Jewish physics" by the Nazis. A militaristic dictator who was not antisemitic who might have seized power in an alternative timeline would of course have used Jewish scientists who were enthusiatically German nationalists prior to Hitler's rise to power.

[Samsonsmasher]

Originally Posted by beauf

Unfortunately neither was useful for defeating a land army, that's was overrunning your bases and factories. Neither allowed you to stop the allies war production. Germany had no strategic weapons like heavy bombers. The jets were unreliable and vulnerable landing, and taking off, and on the ground and at slow speed in the air. Around 100 were shot down in the air.

Germany (Hitler) simply over extended itself. His increasing interference caused catastrophic errors. For example He wanted to use the 262 as a bomber originally. Being rash and unpredictable and the sucker punch only gets you so far.

Eventually you will be ground down by an opponent with more resources.

Nazi Germany faced a fuel crisis in 1941-1942 which is why the offensive in the Caucasus was win or lose and was only able to produce synthetic fuel in limited quantities in the final years of the war grounding its air force and curtailing offensive ground combat operations.
The Me262 should in large quantities have been a war winning weapon but without fuel it couldn't fly enough.
Also Germany had an acute manpower crisis after its defeats in the East so Luftwaffe personnel increasingly fought as infantry toward the end of the war.
Germany produced too few weapons in enough quantities like the Me262, the Tiger 2 tank, the MP44 and others to outdo the Allies.
In 1941 during the invasion of Russia the German Army marched on foot and on horseback.
Once the Americans and Soviets were mobilized the Wehrmacht were ultimately overwhelmed by numbers of guns tanks and troops they had to face althought the Nazis consistently had a better espirit de corps.

[saabsaab]

Originally Posted by beauf

Unfortunately neither was useful for defeating a land army, that's was overrunning your bases and factories. Neither allowed you to stop the allies war production. Germany had no strategic weapons like heavy bombers. The jets were unreliable and vulnerable landing, and taking off, and on the ground and at slow speed in the air. Around 100 were shot down in the air.

Germany (Hitler) simply over extended itself. His increasing interference caused catastrophic errors. For example He wanted to use the 262 as a bomber originally. Being rash and unpredictable and the sucker punch only gets you so far.

Eventually you will be ground down by an opponent with more resources.

With Europe and much of the productive USSR under his control at one point Germany had vast resources available but wasnt able to properly use them.

[beauf]

Originally Posted by Samsonsmasher

....
The Me262 should in large quantities have been a war winning weapon .

Air forces are not solely made of fighters. Arguably the 262 is bomber destroyer rather than a air superiority fighter, as it's guns have limited ammo and slow rate of fire. It also has unreliable engines, and many were lost for that reason alone. If you losing an engine or power didn't make you crash, it made you easy prey for allied fighters.

[E mac]

Didn't Hitler initially think Britain as potential allies? He was sure that they wouldn't intervene when Germany invaded Poland. He saw Britains specifically English people as part of the Aryan Germanic master race...

[beauf]

Originally Posted by saabsaab

With Europe and much of the productive USSR under his control at one point Germany had vast resources available but wasnt able to properly use them.

It's not simply about raw materials. Take the battle of Britain. Germany couldn't replace the pilots and crews it lost as they crashed or bailed out over Britain. The allies pilots could get back in to the fight.

Same with planes even if they made it down to the ground they were lost. Whereas Britain had rapid repair facilities organised.

Once the fight moved over to Europe and Germany the allies could still replace heavy losses.

Same with equipment Germany equipment was over engineered complex and difficult to repair. Allied stuff was robust and simple to repair. Russian stuff even more so.

Germany also used a lot of slave labour and transport lines though occupied countries. Lots of sabotage etc. Even in things like armour the quality of the German metal degraded though the war.

Towards the end of the war German pilots had very little training compared to the allied pilots. Ok some Germans were very experienced but they would be replaced with raw rookie pilots if lost.

All those things and others combined were just too much.

[beauf]

Originally Posted by E mac

Didn't Hitler initially think Britain as potential allies? He was sure that they wouldn't intervene when Germany invaded Poland. He saw Britains specifically English people as part of the Aryan Germanic master race...

Yes. Another one of Hitler's miscalculations.