How Hitler could have won

Russian navy?!?!


Please no more capital letters after commas. It is a bit tricky to read (at least for me) and quite an eye sore ).

 

Those plans were scrapped when Germany attacked the USSR in 1941, those were designed to STOP the oil flowing to Hitler's Third Reich from 1939-41, not to cripple the USSR's oil production per se. Stalin was literally fueling Hitler's attacks in the west.

 

I know, but you must have misunderstood, And those plans where only scrapped after Hitler made them known.. had that not happened and Britain and/or France attacked then regardless of intent of it, Russia would have retaliated. as would any country if there soverienpgnty was violated. The only way to stop the flow of oil heading towards Germany with out bringing war down on them self would be to pay Russia to stop them sending oil to Germany which they couldn't afford anyway.

 

The key was to win Russia's inclination with friendlier attitude, not with bombing. The plan of bombing Caucasus oilfields was proposed by the French representatives at the sixth Anglo-French Supreme War Council in March 1939 but the British delegation firmly opposed the plan. Later in 1943 strategic bombing of Romanian oilfields at Ploesti has proven that the decision of the AFSC was correct: Operation tidal Wave was one of the costliest for the USAAF, with 53 aircraft and 660 air crewmen lost. The available equipment wasn't sufficient to achieve the objectives at reasonable costs.

 

We're all glad that they were crushed by the Allies. I don't know why thinking they could have won the war means they are Pro-Nazi or are not sympathetic to the Allied cause. If we're going to play that game one could just as easily say that the Nazi threat is minimized and the Allied efforts minimized by denying that there's any possible way the Nazis could have won.

The reality is, mistakes and different decisions made on both sides could have caused very different outcomes. In fact, mistakes did have an impact on the war. It wasn't one decision to one result either. Complex combinations of Allied and Axis decisons going on at the same time is what lead the direction of the war.

Acknowledging the real threat that the Nazis posed on the world and accepting that mistakes and decisions made by both sides contributed to the final outcome isn't Pro-Nazi. It's realistic and it teaches us very valuable lessons on how close we came to an even worse disaster. Going around mininalizing the threat they posed and especially in the name of not being seen as "pro-Nazi" serves no purpose.

 

Mistakes and different decisions could NOT have caused different outcomes.

Mistakes did NOT have an impact on the war.

The nazis did NOT pose a real threat on the world,but on Europe : Europe is not the world .


We NEVER were close to an even worse disaster.


Germany never had any chance to win : not against Britain,not against the SU,not against the US.

 

Either you have an extremely limited defintion of "outcome" or you have no idea what you are talking about. Both is certainly possible.

You have a history here of making rediculous statments but this may be an all time winner. Mistakes had significant impact at essentiall all levels of the war. Indeed it can be argued that they were fundamental to the war even happeing.

Are you suggesting a Nazi dominated Europe wouldn't have had consequences for the rest of the world?

I'd certainly like to see some facts and logic supporting that assertion. Indeed there were a number of incidents/decisions that I can think of that likely would have made things worse.

Again a rather bold assertaion and one that on it's face is unproveable.

 

I can't agree with you there. There were definitely threats imposed upon the entire world. The mass exodus of civilians and cultures that were discriminated against in Europe have a direct effect on generations throughout the world. In addition, the V-1 and V-2 rocket program. What was Operation Teardrop for?

 

US were not threatened by Germany : The U Boats of operation Teardrop had no V1/V2 .

India or Mexico were also not threatened by Germany :if Germany had won in Europe,its power would have been limited to Europe and after a few years the Third Reich would have collapsed .

Saying that the nazis posed a real threat on the world is only a hyperbole:most of the world felt not concerned by the nazis .People in China,India,Africa,Latin America were indifferent about Germany .

 

1)Outcome of the war = allied or axis victory .Nothing else .

2)ONE (only one) proof of a mistake that had a significant impact on the war .

3 ) Of topic

4) Of topic :the discussion is not if a nazi dominated Europe would have had consequences for the rest of the world (something which already is very questionable) but if a nazi dominated Europe would have threatened the rest of the world .

 

For a lot of subjects of the colonial powers, WWII was a war of the white man,and it was wise not to be involved in this war .

Besides, a Europe dominated by the nazis would have lost very soon its colonies : Holland,occupied by the Germans,was the first to lose its colonial empire .The others (Britain,France,Belgium) would follow and the influence of Europe outside the continent was vanishing very quickly .

Thus: German or allied victory : the role of Europe was over .

 

Agreed...but if, and we are in the what if section, Germany had continued military successes and expanded their empire, they would of had advance staging areas to launch long range bombers and improved self guided missle system. I find it interesting how, in the what if section, we can be so concrete.

 

Even if that was well accepted it is a rediculously simlified description of the outcome of WWII. I doubt many if anyone else on this board shares your opinion or your definiton in this case.

You are the proponent here so it should really be up to you to prove your point. The fact that you have chosen to champion and unproveable position is your problem. But I'll throw in one here. Market Garden was a mistake if instead an operation had been conducted to clear the approaches to Antwerp the allies woud have been in a stronger position in latter months.

How so? I certainly don't agree.

Since historically the Nazi war machines not only threatened but destroyed property and killed people from all over the world that a Nazi dominated Europe would be even more of a problem takes little imagination.

Some saw it that way many did not but I'm not sure how this is relevant to the topic at hand.

Perhaps or perhaps not. Note that the Dutch lost at least some of their colonies to a colonial power that made the residents of said colonies long for the Dutch and of course arguably the French lost some of their colonies first although they both got them back at least for a while. So just how is the above relevant to the topic at hand?

??? Europe still has considerable influence througout the world. So your basic premise is refuted without even addressing the hypothetical.

 

What brings you to this conclusion?

 

It's worth noteing that at least some historians are convinced that Hilter didn't plan to stop at controllling Europe and indeed regaining Germany's overseas possesions was one of his stated objectives.

This was of course a rhetorical statement but IMO it should be pointed out theat "we" are not being all that concrete, there's only one here that I can see that is stateing that all possible alternatives must all have a single outcome.

 

It was said, kind of, tongue in cheek. I apologize for the lumping of we.

 

No need to apologize. You were being generous. I find myself growing progressily less so. Especially when the signs of an under bridge dweller are so strong.

 

1)Here also your knowledge is lacking :

MG was no mistake,it was a reasonable operation that failed,but its failure did not affect the outcome of the war .

2)This also is wrong :your knowledge of the impact of the supply problems of the Allies on the development of the war in 1944 is more than lacking : it is not so that a quicker use of the harbour of Antwerp would have relieved the allied supply problems and it is not so that the relief of the allied supply problems would have an impact on the military situation in 1944: maybe you have forgotten,but there was an enemy on the other side .
But as usual,you are attributing the failure of a military operation on supply problems and denying the role of the opponent .

3) The better the better : the European nations have no influence at all iutside the continent and the European Community will collaps very soon (sadly not quickly enough)

 

Facts : after the war,Europe was destroyed and ruined :the winter of 1947 was a catastrophe .The colonial powers were in full retreat .If Germany had won,this would have only accelerated a development which already started after WWI .

The occupation of Spain and Portugal by Bonaparte,followed by the installation of governments in exile in Latin America,had as result the end of the Spanish and Portugese colonial empires :Spain and Portugal were to weak to reoccupy their colonies (they were also hindered by the new world power :Britain) .

Whatever may be the outcome of WWII (German/Allied victory) ,Britain,France,Belgium,Holland were losing/would lose their colonies :they were to weak to recover them,and were hindered by the new world power :the US .

 

I don't think so and you clearly don't make much of a case for it.

Yes Market Garden was a mistake. Any reasonable analysis of it today illustrates that. There was too little chance of it succeeding and even if it suceeeded it wasn't likely to produce the results some claimed it would. On the other hand clearing the approaches to Antwerp was much more likely to succeed and would have improved the allied logistic situation to a considerable extent in the coming months. And yes it did affect the out come of the war unless one limits oneself to the rediculously simplified defintion of "outcome" which you wish to use and which I reject utterly. Those approaches needed to be cleared eventually in any case and could have been cleared much easier at the time of Market Garden than they were later. This puts the alllied armies in a signifcantly better logistics situation in late 44 and 45. The possibility exist that they could have entered Germany weeks or even months sooner and that impacts the outcome of the war in significant ways and indeed coulld impact the post war world in some significant ways as well.

??? Getting the port of Antwerp functional significantly earlier would indeed have improved the logistical situation of the Alllies. To say otherwise is to live in fantasy land. Furthermore improving the log picture has quite clear implications as regards to improving the military sitiuation for the western allies. As for denying the existance of the Soviets that's another obvious strawman. I have no idea why you even post such things as they are so obviously false. What impact it has on the Soviets though is a little harder to tell. If the western allies move faster and/or are in better position in late 44 it's possible for instance that there is no German offensive in December. That may make things more difficult for the Soviets as those troops may stay in the east. I agree that Germany looses but the details of how and when are far from fixed and that's part of the outcome of the war by any reasonable defintion of the word. Of course it's not at all clear you have any idea what reason is.

You really don't have any idea what you are talking about do you. I keep hopeing that one of these days you will be able to differenitate between your opinions and facts, not sure why I keep it up though when the evidence so clearly indicates that you won't.