[beauf]

Originally Posted by RGARDINR

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.

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.

[RGARDINR]

Originally Posted by beauf

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]

Originally Posted by RGARDINR

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]

Originally Posted by RGARDINR

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]

Originally Posted by RGARDINR

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]

Originally Posted by Samsonsmasher

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]

Originally Posted by RGARDINR

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]

Originally Posted by Samsonsmasher

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.

[Chinese whospers]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Chinese whospers

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.

[Chinese whospers]

Originally Posted by Samsonsmasher

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]

Originally Posted by Samsonsmasher

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.