How Hitler could have won

BS : otherwise there was no need for MG.The allies planned and executed MG because they were convinced that there was a chance that MG could finish the war before XMas,or even before Thanksgiving .

 

If they didn't there would have been no reason to suggest that making sure there was not "Alpine Redoubt" the prefered alternative. From what I recall they weren't sure they could be the Soviets but it was considered possible. So unless you have something that indicates they didn't think it was possible I'll take this as another one of your flawed opinions that you have mistaken for a fact.

Of course they did. Unconditional surrender is about as clear of proof of it as you can get.

The word "if" is not the argument. The argument clearly was that Germany would likely surrender in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Berlin. Obvioulsy if the allies take Berlin well before the Soviets then the war ends earlier.

Learn to read with comprehension and you'll save a lot of bandwidth and not appear to be such a fool. Of course that may be your intent as it is with some trolls.

 

Another opinion without fact and of deficient logic. Here's a hint you have been offered before. Using a superalitive makes it very hard to be correct. There were a number of possible things Hitler could have done that would have given him a chance of "winning" the most obvious would be avoiding a war with both the USSR and the western powers at the same time. In essence he can only win world war 2 if he avoids world war 2. So doing however doesn't by any means guarantee a win nor is it clear he would have been capable of the actions required.

Some of them may have been convinced that doesn't mean that it had any reasonable expectation of acomplishing that goal even based on the knowledge available at the time. Nor is it at all clear just who was convinced that it had any reasonable chance at such a success. From what I recall there were some that were convinced that the operation was more likely to fail than it was to even achieve it's intial goals much less the success that you seem to indicate.

 

Just because the allies were under the impression that the war was won in late 1944, the reality is the Germans still had reserves left and to think that all that was needed was to march to Berlin was quickly proven to be terribly mistaken. As far as Antwerp the issue is that to conduct a offense it is necessary to stockpile supplies and since Antwerp was the only major port besides Marseille that was functional so it was critical to conduct further offences into Germany.

 

I was not talking about a reasonable chance, but about a chance : at the moment of MG"the Hun was on the run" and the allied opinion was that the windows of opportunity would be closed before the allies could launch a big offensive to finish the war,BUT that there was still time to launch a small offensive,which would succeed if at Arnhem the Germans would shout :Kamarad and raise their arms .They did not .And MG failed.But it was worth to try it .

The alternative(waiting two months before launching a big offensive) was a non sequitur : it had no chance at all to finish the war before XMas .

The value of the battle of the Hurtgen Forest has been disputed:modern historians argue that the outcome was not worth the foreseeable losses .

source :Weigley: Eisenhower's lieutenants:the campaign of France and Germany: 44/45 PP 384/389

In september there were not enough divisions/ not enough supplies for a big offensive.
In november and later,the Germans were to strong .

The only option after MG was to wait for the spring and meanwhile to exhaust the Germans .

 

He is confirming what I said : Germany had no chance .All the rest is wishful-thinking from people who wish that Germany had won .And from people who deny the allies their role : the allies won, Germany did not lose .

 

There is nothing special about a war with both the USSR and the western powers at the same time : if he failed in the west,he was obliged to attack in the east .

 

Market Garden was not worth it. The chance of it winning the war, even from the information available at the time, was so remote as to be almost impossible. That it might have helped was a possiblity but a rational assesement of where the situation truly was in Europe would have indicated that the supperior option was clear in the port of Antwerp. There was no chance of finishing the war before Xmas.

Irrelevant to the current discussion though.

Clearing the port of Antwerp would have allowed for the possibility of resuming the offensive earlier in 45 and exhausting the Germans more rapidly in the mean time. At the same time in may well have weakened the Germans even more in and of itself.

Only in your own warped imagination. Germany lost the allies won. Flip sides of the same coin. As for your accusations of "wishful-thinking from people who wish that Germany had won" you can't be further from the truth (although you keep trying).

Right, If you get into a war that you can't win your obliged to attack someone else who maybe strong enough in and of themeselves to defeat you. That's unfortunatly the level of logic that we have come to expect from you.

I do apologize for to the rest of you. I contineu to respond to a troll like he is a thinking person worthy of a rational response. Bad habit of mine I know but one I find hard to break.

 

He is not responding,all he is doing is shouting insults,and all this because he wants to prove that he knows better than the allied generals and that if they had listened to him, they would have won the war much earlier :such attitude is not uncommon on forums about WWII.

 

Immediately after the liberation of Antwerp,the Allies started with the elimination of the German forces on the east and west bank of the Scheldt (they did not wait several weeks as are claiming uninformed people) followed by the clearance of the Scheldt,and it took them more than 2 months to do it .Maybe certain people imagine that they could do this in july,when they were still in Normandy ?

And,the later Antwerp became operational,the better,the earlier ,the worse :if in september Antwerp became operational,after less than a week,everything would be blocked: nothing would leave,nothing would enter .

The following are the figures for the tonnages discharged at Antwerp (for what was leaving the port,there are only figures available for december)

April : 628,227
march :588,066
february :473,463
january :433;094
december:427,592
november (only a few days):5,873
october would be even less than november
september would be almost nihil
And while in december 75% could leave the port,it would be a few % for september .

In september the railways did not work,the canals were blocked (even in january) and the bridges were destroyed which would make the effort of the trucks negligible .

There was also an other reason why a big decisive attack in 1944 was not possible : the allies had not enough forces.Sufficient forces would be available only in 1945.

 

Think for a while I'll just follow the old internet addage "Don't feed the troll". Especially easy when it's flailing as badly as this one is.