Quote:
Originally Posted by PactOfSteel
this answer starts at the beginning, Hitler should have built up his military might more before going to war with Poland/Europe.
|
But he did. The Werhmacht went from 100,000 men in 1934 to 4,722,000 by Aug 1939 and 8,154,000 by 1941. That is quite a buildup in a very short amount of time.
Quote:
|
Defeating the Bolsheviks/Communism were the Nazis highest priorities but they had to ally with them at beginning or else they could have faced a two-front war, Hitler knew this and in the back of his head he was waiting for the perfect opportunity to strike. Saying this it confuses me still why he decided to forsake England a enemy that was no where near being defeated
|
Because he knew that the German forces could not defeat the UK without a significant addition the DKM and he apparently was too impatient to wait on that improbable eventuality.
Quote:
|
and were allied with us a sleeping giant, didn't he know that sooner or later they were going to invade France with superior forces? yes he had the beaches mined and built the bunkers ect... for a invasion but why not just finish off England? Yes it was a stalemate military wise, England was ready for a invasion from the Germans and they had a good navy.
|
He apparently didn't think the US was capable or willing to get elbow deep in war or would not be much of an adversary, why I do not know. Looking at situation years removed and with post-incident knowledge of what happened, it is easy to see that he "should have known." Very likely, he considered a cross-channel invasion as impractical for the Brits as it was for him. I don't think the thought of American involvement in it even would have crossed his mind in the Spring of 1941.
Quote:
|
Operation Sealion shouldn't have been post-poned, it should have been either re-planned or executed not delayed. Once England was removed then regather strength, build-up and finally invade the Soviets knowing you won't be fighting a two-front war. And yes Barbarossa should have began at that date, then the winter wouldn't have been has bad. Napoleon made the same mistake.
|
As Terry Gardner said in
another thread, Sealion would have been an unmitigated disaster for the Germans on so many levels. On June 6, 1944, the Western Allies
totally controlled the seas and the air over and around the landing grounds and had to fight over only the landing grounds themselves. Sealion as planned in 1940 would have required the Wehrmacht to fight over the air and sea around the landing grounds, as well as the landing grounds themselves. We are very aware of what happened over Great Britain the Summer of 1940 and we are also aware of the unreplaceable losses of naval assets the Norway expedition cost the DKM. How were the Germans going to change the outcome? If the Wehrmacht had persisted in a cross-channel invasion, we would probably now be spending our forum time arguing why he
couldn't see that it was bound to fail, as it would be so plain to us now.