could hitler win the war?
Posted 01 September 2006 - 02:11 PM
Personally, I think yes, if Hitler did not cancel the German nuclear program, started the war three month earlier, did not mind Greece, concentrate only on Moscow, did not waste any of his time on Ukraine, just surround and bypass. He might be able to capture Moscow and Stalin as well, before winter.
As for England, it won’t take anything more than a few nuclear bombs to get it to surrender.
With all the resources of Europe, the best generals, and the most experienced and well trained, well equipped troops in the world, it would be a whole new situation facing the Americans when it invades Europe.
That is just my personal thoughts, what do you guys think.
Posted 01 September 2006 - 02:43 PM
Posted 01 September 2006 - 03:06 PM
Posted 01 September 2006 - 09:08 PM
Posted 01 September 2006 - 09:08 PM
Posted 01 September 2006 - 09:38 PM
Now, there are two basic means to get fissionable weapons grade nuclear material: Enrich uranium 234 by seperating it from U238. The other is to use a fast fission breeder reactor to make Pu 239 from U 238.
Germany possessed neither means of production in 1945 outside tiny amounts in a laboratory. No nuclear material, no bomb.
The US will beat Germany to the punch. Likely, given the far superior Soviet spy program, that the Soviets will too. It doesn't help that Hitler and his close cronies pretty much despised physics, and in particular theoretical and nuclear physics, sufficently that their program would languish in obscurity until several of their cities disappeared under mushroom clouds.
Ignoring Greece (and, I suspect the Mediterrainian): If Italy enters the war then Germany must worry about their southern flank. If Britain, even alone, is able to defeat Italy and remain on the continent they are a threat that cannot be ignored. They will be a constant drain on resources for Germany.
Germany vs Britain: Germany is a land power that has poor access to large petroleum reserves and the sea. Britain is a seapower with access to plenty of petroleum reserves. Land powers generally cannot maintain their land power and produce useful amounts of seapower. Germany is in this situation. Therefore, Germany cannot get at England so the best the Germans can hope for is a draw or stalemate.
Note: with one or two exceptions, and usually when the user combines it with already existant seapower, the Guerre de course will eventually fail as a naval tactic. It can be costly to the seapower it is waged against but it is rarely successful on its own.
What this means is U-boats are very unlikely to win the Battle of the Atlantic on their own, no matter how many you have.
Hitler's best course of action was following the fall of France to simply quit. Just wait out England, keep the US out of the war, and sit on the spoils already obtained. There will be time in 10 or 15 years for a rematch after the 'empire' has settled down into a stable state.
Posted 01 September 2006 - 11:26 PM
Heisenberg and the Nazi Atomic Bomb Project, 1939-1945
A Study in German Culture
On that book you get the feeling in the end that the Germans were so close yet millions of miles away. ANd it would have required Heisenberg´s thought on thinking about the diameter of the bomb first. Once he heard as a POW that there was a bomb in japan, even twice, he got the numbers calculated within two weeks after it had happened.
ANyway, Heisenberg was working on a nuclear power plant bomb type of thing. Not really going as a bomber mission but through this might havew gotten the idea of Plutonium and its usage as material for the bomb. IN fact if the Uranium was left out Plutonium could be used instead and what would the calculations be for this. Also it must be epmhasized that the calculation system was already known in 1939 by all sides, only that the allied believed it and used it.
SO the Germans were off the correct line of creating the bomb. IT seems that the fact SPeer did not give much priority to the planning guaranteed it would not work. BY making big plans there could have been more understanding about Plutonium and how the critical mass would be smaller etc. Now just by Heisenberg´s calculation the idea of the bomb was almost put aside...except for the nuclear power plant type.
Posted 01 September 2006 - 11:26 PM
At this rate the whole world would be under Nazi control, can you image that world? A bloody nightmare, I'm glad that B*****d was defeated.
Originally posted by Ironcross:
Is there any chance at all that Hitler could defeat Russia, England and America?
PS. Ironcross, I am not having ago at you.
Posted 02 September 2006 - 01:07 AM
How can it be possible for Hitler to sit back and watch the Russians train more and more troops, mass more and more army, make more and more tanks?
By the way, I am sure you know how much Russians the Germans captured on their first week of operation, which kind of gives you an idea on how many Russian troops are close to the border.
I think it is possible for Hitler to defeat Russia without going to war with the Americans.
When Hitler declares war with America, there is no way in hell he could win. Maybe I am wrong, but I really think Hitler had a shot at defeating Russia. Like I said, only if he would let his generals fight the war; if that was the case, in my science teacher’s word: “we would all speak German now”. Well, I do not know how many people would be left to do that.
Posted 02 September 2006 - 03:23 AM
Declaring war on America did not impact germany for almost 3 years. By the time the U.S. entered the war Germany had already lost. Infact by the end of 1942 German generals like mienstien tride to convince Hitler that Germany could not win the war in the eastern front. This was more that a year before U.S. entered France. In other words if U.S. hadnt entered the war the war would off probably dragged on war another year but Germany would off still lost.
Posted 02 September 2006 - 03:25 AM
Posted 02 September 2006 - 07:14 AM
If you just consider the losses by the end of 1941. Almost all of the tanks lost ( 20,000 to begin with, although many obsolete ones ), over 3 million POW´s to Germans and how many killed and injured, thousands of planes lost.
Just how many countries would continue fighting with the losses of this magnitude? No wonder Hitler said in 1941-42 many times " The Russian is dead". Which he definitely was not.
Posted 02 September 2006 - 11:58 AM
Sloniksp, After the Battle of Stalingrad, Manstein knew from this point on the war in the east was lost and the Russians would advance and liberate Mother Russia.
Posted 02 September 2006 - 08:27 PM
But on another note, most of Russia had no paved roads and in most cases the Germans would advance further in the winter or summer rather then spring and fall due to all the rainfall that would turn the roads into complete muddy swamps in which tanks would just sink along with heavy artillery
Posted 11 September 2006 - 06:17 AM
Well, giving my 10 cents worth I would say no.
And the problem was much deeper then just taking Moscow or not,[or the myriad of other so called Hitler mistakes once the war started] the whole Nazi regime was built on Corrupt and rotten foundations....
Industrial war potential and not just the quality of the military forces determined the outcome. The Nazis forgot that economic potential had to be activated.
Class and party corruption and Bureaucratic infighting was rampant in Germany, and branches of the military fought against each other, key Nazi leaders like Goering tried to maximize their controls over industry to gain more power and wealth at the expense of centralised production [and Goering couldn't even run the Air force.]
Germany could not even outproduce Britain or Russia [even after most of White Russia was over run] until Speer organised things, but by then it was too little too late, and of course the tremendous production power house of America was in a league of it's own, the Americans out produced every Axis power put together.
The Allies also used low-cost mass production techniques, while Japan and to some extent Germany continued to rely on expensive hand-crafted methods. Germany focused on the production of costly high-tech weaponry such as the V rockets, jet engines, and heavy tanks which were propaganda victories but strategically impotent at that stage of the war.
The Nazis did not really understand what total war meant. Nor did they initially have a real strategic aim.
'Why the Allies Won' by Richard Overy is a good book on the subject.
Posted 11 September 2006 - 07:01 PM
You must also remember that Hitler wanted to keep the "normal" German daily life going on with dog racing, zoos etc during war. The production levels for army were not meant to be high because 1. the war was won already 2. the social life of people would suffer from long working days. That was until Stalingrad.
Germany could not even outproduce Britain or Russia..
I don´t think if this had been different the end result would have changed but anyway I´m happy the Germans were not producing war material at their highest level from the beginning.
Especially I think the V-weapons production "ate" the money from other more dangerous projects. Just think they would have put all the money instead in the ground-to-air missile projects, the "wasserfall" or other similar projects.
Posted 13 September 2006 - 04:35 AM
He admitted he knew nothing about economics, and being a morphine addict probably didn't help.
I think the Germans spent about a quarter of the total Manhattan project on the V2, and ended up with an almost worthless weapon system.
The money, materials, and immense effort put into the V2, could have built over 20,000 fighters.
Posted 13 September 2006 - 01:04 PM
Posted 13 September 2006 - 05:11 PM
It was a revolutionary idea it just in its preliminary stages.......being on the recievinb side of this flying monster would off been more then devistating, especially not knowing how many the other side had and how the heck to shoot it down.
Posted 14 September 2006 - 01:02 AM
Posted 14 September 2006 - 04:13 AM
im not sure, but werent a few V1s shot down by RAF pilots?
Yep, a big proportion of the V1's the first 'cruise missile' was shot down by Allied fighters and AA batteries, I've seen footage of RAF pilots actually getting their wing tips under the V1's wing and flipping them over causing them to crash.
And the V2, although it couldn't be intercepted, was extremely inaccurate, all the Germans could do was to aim it at London and hope it would hit it, plus it had a war head of under a ton, compared to Allied heavy bombers of over 6 tons.
Over 2000 V2's were fired at targets on the European continent, killing about 1,736 civilians, and over 1,400 were fired against England with about seven thousand civilians killed.
All in all, the immense effort in the V2 programme produced virtually no worth while results in the Nazi war effort.
Posted 14 September 2006 - 01:54 PM
Our secret service or so played it part for example when the V1's landed on target they would inform Germany they under shot to the next wave was recalibrated resulting in the V1's to over shoot there target area.
Posted 14 September 2006 - 02:14 PM
The Secret War
By Brian Johnson
Posted 14 September 2006 - 03:50 PM
Posted 14 September 2006 - 06:22 PM
In The Secret War programme ( Terror Weapons ) Raymond Baxter was talking about one of his missions over Holland, they were flying low when out of no where a V2 came up right through the gun sight of one of his wing men and he decided not to fire on the V2 just as well.
Raymond Baxter served in the Royal Air Force in World War II. On 18 March 1945, he took part in a daring daylight raid on the Shell-Mex building in The Hague, which was the HQ for V1 and V2 attacks. The commander, Max Sutherland, received a bar to his DFC and the other four pilots, including Raymond, were mentioned in dispatches.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users