so, first a better command system as united high command which have the same eccuracy as Stavka, Shaef or Grand Quartier General during the WWI.
identified goals need reals ways.
forget the lucky strike strategy.
fist german beat the foot soldier ie France
then they take the risk to invade England whatever is the cost
second a real work for Uboat during 1940 1941 years
third they must not stop Panzer building during summer 40
you can forget too the Halt Befhel nearby Dunkirk and capture 200 000 tommies and the England is out of game as the french are in june with their 1.200000 POW and 120 000 KIA (2000 per day)

in all case they have the possibility to win in afrika what is the sacrifice of one or two FallSchirmjager Rgt for the control of malta ?

better organisation for Barbarossa, not a blinding invasion. I'm so sorry (it s little frenchy "vengeance" we lost with good tank as Somua 35, we made campaign with poor vehicule too H35 etc, do you think that attack USSR with 600 PzKI or PzkII is the sign of brightness mind ? )

send unit as replacement and not as renforcements as PzK in russia or PzBrigade in France, to renforce cadre unit instead to fight as fresh but green units....

and finally accept that is not poker but war, building a coherent strategy and asking sacrifices to the population. working during night, femal working, not stopping train for ostfront for Xmas etc etc as english, americans, russians did it....(for us, we are not in battle for a too long time to do it ...)

The Stg44 was a late invention. It was a indeed a great weapon.
Germany's jew killing did not chance the war's outcome.

Germany did not had to invade Russia. Hitler had to help those Italians in Africa - because they were so bad - when he did help the Italians, Hitler could had whole Africa.. If this was complete he could attack the Caucasus for the oil. That was the only thing he needed. Instead of fighting a two-front war. A two-front war is almost impossible to win.

I mean Hitler was fighting in Africa and Europe. Why in gods name would he fight against England and Russia when there's a whole army in Africa.

Now at the real situation.. When Hitler invaded Russia the reserves didn't followed the troops. That was a big mistake. Well he still could support the troops in Russia if he used the goddamn railroads, but no he used them for the jews instead of helping his men.

__________________

But Germany's killing of the Jewidh population had a drastic effect. If they hadn't killed all of the jews and accepted them as there own then Germany would have been on the forfront economically. Most Jews were in the buisness class and had control of the companies and production facilities indutries whatever. They were also alot of the brains. Correct me if I'm wrong, but quite a few good scientist at the time in Germany were Jewish. Albert Einstein anyone?!!! He eventually built the US the bomb, what if he had been loyal to Germany. What about the other scientists. If Germany hadn't killed the Jews, then the Jews would have stayed in Germany and the Germans would have had greatly improved the economic status and indutrial output of the GErman War Machine. Besides this but Concentration Camps were a horrific endeavor to undertake and needed subsidizing on the war machines part!

__________________
Since no one has paid me to kill you, sleep well.
-Bobba Fett http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/index.html

The problem with Germany in World War Two was once they started building tanks that were so complicated, took tons of time, money and man-power to build, they were always outnumbered tank-wise; even if German tanks were better than the enemies, there were just to many of the enemy for the Germans to handle. If the Germans had made a tank that was cheap and could mass produce and was just as effective as the T-34 on the battlefield, the Germans with their superior tank skills could have easily turned the tide against them and have possibly won the war against Russia. Another blunder that eventually cost the Germans the war was the Battle of Britain when the Luftwaffe failed against the RAF. If Germany had taken England, nothing would have stopped Hitler from taking over the world in my opinion. Even little battles defined the face of the war but Hitler should have just left the war to his generals and battles that were lost, could have been won- like Stalingrad. Well, there are many more things that I could rant on about but that's my say on it and I'm looking forward to seeing what others have to say about it.

__________________
Michael Crate

From WWI there already was National-Socialisme so it didn't started when Hitler rose and if you're National-Socialist you blame them. Hitler was busy building his own bomb.

The uranium project scientist (Germany, not everybody):
Max van Laue, Erich Bagge, Kurt Diebner, Walther Gerlach, Otto Hahn, Paul Harteck, Werner Heisenberg, Horst Korsching, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker and Karl Wirtz...

They were already building it, the Allied were faster since Albert Einstein warned America that Germany took nuclear weapons serious and America wanted to make an A-bomb before eventualy Germany and Japan did.

The "Konzentrationslager" was never uncovered if Russia didn't pushed Germany behind. Some knew they were camps but didn't know excatly what happend (except some Germans Officers) or they just had a feeling or they knew what was going on but still people denied it so nobody took it seriously (just like America), because you couldn't get close to the camps and the only way to see what was going on was by plane. They tried to but it never succeeded. I thought even they bombed it but it never hit it the camp seriously enough to take it out. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

__________________

Do a search on the forum. We have discussed to exhaustion the possibilities and consequences (or lack of) hitting the Baku or Middle East oil. We even discussed the possibilities of the Italians finding they were sitting on the Lybian oil all the time without knowing it.

In this forum we use to write "Jews" or any other nationality with a capital initial.

__________________
No Rest for the Wicked!

Declare war on the USA then lose straight away, get massive cash injections from the US to rebuild German industry and then buy the World.

Just like actually happened to Germany and Japan, compare their industry and wealth to Britain, who supposedly won.
Where's the British car industry?
British ship-building etc etc.

__________________

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

The "Konzentrationslager" was never uncovered if Russia didn't pushed Germany behind. Some knew they were camps but didn't know excatly what happend (except some Germans Officers) or they just had a feeling or they knew what was going on but still people denied it so nobody took it seriously (just like America), because you couldn't get close to the camps and the only way to see what was going on was by plane. They tried to but it never succeeded. I thought even they bombed it but it never hit it the camp seriously enough to take it out. (Correct me if I'm wrong).[/quote]

I will correct you on this point.

IBM was in league with the Third Reich in data collection of Jews and other undesirables. So at least one American company knew what the information was for. I saw a documentary on the concentration camps and i was amazed that the allies had known as early as 1942 that the concentation and extermination camps existed, and as far as i know only one mission was authorised to attack Birkenau but the Allies conceded that the elimination of Germany's capacity to wage war was far more important that to attack concentration camps.

of course ! ! and Indiana Jones must be a german

Was IBM directly involved? I recall reading that IBM did provide the men to repair the machines and new parts for the machines/ new machines but were not involved in using the data.

__________________

What i have read indicates that they (IBM) were very much complicate in their involement in the third reich and data collection in regards to Jews and other undesirables.

Not exactly the correct title but about ten years ago a book came out called something like "IBM and the Holocaust".

IBM did in fact sold them the equipment, trained men for the implentation of the equipment and maintained the equipment during the war, no they did not use the data for themselves, but IBM was as culpable as the Nazis in the Holocaust, without IBM the Nazis would never have achieved as much as they did.

I'm thinking you intended to type "complicit". My fingers get crossed sometimes, also.

I don't follow this. If what you propose is the case, then if I sell you a pen and a tablet of paper on which you make a list of people you are going to murder, then am I guilty also?

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Yes a finger slip or two, complicit it is. I follow your thinking, but according to the book IBM knew what their computers (Data Collectors) were for and sold them the machines anyway, i strongly suggest if you can read the book.

The Nazis would have still done everything they did, it just would have taken more work. Trying to blame IBM for the Holocaust is a a bit far fetched.

__________________
"Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Barack Obama

A comprehensive plan that envisioned Operation Sichelschnitt (sickle-stroke) succeeding. The problem with sickle-stroke was that the plan ended at the English channel, there was no comprehensive planning for "what next?".

The important thing missing from sickle-stroke was a long term objective. What is sickle-stroke supposed to accomplish?

Assuming that the objective of sickle stroke is to defeat the enemy completely then sickle-stroke can be extended. If instead of ending sickle-stroke at the English channel, you extend its area of operation into England, then things change in the overall planning. Instead of having the French channel ports as objectives of the breakthrough, you extend their line of march northward and have the encirclement of the Allied forces in Belgium as a second objective. The original plan just called for pushing them to the channel, but if you intend to then move on to England you don't want a long drawn out battle against troops which can be supplied from the sea, you want them completely cut off in a battle of encirclement that Guderian was so good at fighting.

So, when the German units reach the English channel they then move north to link up with units moving south from Holland. The BEF is now surrounded.

Now an invasion of England does not have to contend with the Allied forces which have been shuttled over from Dunkirk. The British at this point have almost nothing to face an invasion with. Home guard units, that's about it.

If you make the paratroop divisions part of sickle stroke and give them British ports as objectives and launch them as soon as it is clear that the BEF is done, there isn't much the British can do about it. The Battle of Britain now becomes what it should have been, every fighter and bomber in the Luftwaffe's arsenal attacking British airfields and radar installations.

An Errol Flynn type of operation launched as soon as the BEF is bottled up would have most likely succeeded. German ships now can transport troops to port facilities instead of needing to land them on beaches. If this had been done quickly the Germans might have been able to get several divisions to England before the Royal Navy could do anything about it. Air power could then be used to resupply these units. As the units advanced they would overrun the RAF bases. As Guderian said several times the best way to defeat enemy air power is to capture the bases they fly from.

Every eyewitness account I have read from people in the British defense forces, preparing to repel the expected German invasion in 1940 read pretty much the same way. "We have five guys and an old Prussian war era cannon to defend 10 miles of beach". "We had to drill with sticks because we had no rilfes". "We had no ammunition to practice with so we had never actually fired a gun"...

I don't think this would have been easy. Every able bodied Brit would have volunteered to fight the Germans with any weapon they could find. The Germans would have massacred British civilians in retaliation. With every pane in the Luftwaffe attacking RAF bases and the RAF fighter planes in the air combined with German units overrunning RAF bases, the Luftwaffe maybe could have established air superiority. And as the fighting in Norway and alter Greece showed, once you gain air superiority the battle is over.

After such bloody fighting there would have been no "peace" treaty. The British would have followed plans laid down long before and fell back on their Empire to continue the fight.

But, Hitler would now be free to jump into Africa in full force. Malta would fall, then the Suez, then the middle east, Iraq would launch their pro-Axis coup a few years early, Turkey would be forced to at least be a friendly neutral, the Balkans would fall.

Then the Russians would have seen the writing on the wall and launched a surprise attack and the end result would have been the same, Hitler in his bunker, the Russians laying waste to Berlin. LOL

Oil, more men, and better tactics.

I strongly believe that Hitler cost himself the war early on in the peice by not capturing the BEF at Dunkerque.

This would amount insofar as to Britain the loss of

230,000 prisoners of war (equaling 15+ divisions).
64,000 vehicles.
750,000 tonnes of war materiel (include Norway an additional 250,000 tonnes making 1,000,000 tonnes overall).
500 ships and vessels either sunk or extensively damaged.

Then Hitler should have launched Operation Seelowe within 4 weeks of Dunkerque no matter what at that point Britain could not replace the loss of those division captured at Dunkerque and St. Valery-en-Crux.

So this is my answer

1, Hitler orders the panzer divisions into Dunkerque to destroy the Dunkerque Pocket, while the Luftwaffe solely concentrates in attacking shipping of the rescue convoys of Operation Dynamo.

2, Hitler completes the invasion of France but must capture France entirely and no armistice but a full unconditional surrender, creation of a German Republic of France with Petain as president, Paris as the capital and that France as partof the unconditional surrender must sign a mutual-assistance treaty with Germany and that the Franch military comes under the direct control of the OKW.

3, Hitler must conclude a mutual-assistance treaty with Norway (Quisling)

4, Hitler must deal with cutting off the Mediterannean by capturing Gibraltar via Spain either with or without Spannish approval, Hitler says Spain owes Germany for the Nationalst victory and now Germany is coming to collect on that debt.

5, Hitler launches Operation Seelowe by throwing everything that Germany has at Britain no holding back, Hitler orders Petain and Quisling to Berlin and orders them to envoke their mutual-assistance treaties and so France and Norway declare war on Britain.

Britain must be knocked out of the war, invasion so close after the destruction of the BEF at Dunkerque and St. Valery-en-Crux is the only option, anything else allows Britain to recover. Once Britain is invaded Hitler must deliver an uncondtional surrender and that part of that surrender is that Britain must sign a mutual-assistance treaty with Germany.

And to finish off postpone Barbarossa until 1942 or 1943 and build up a Deutsches Gropf Armeen (German Grand Army) with the deployment of British and French troops as part on any invasion forces into the Soviet Union.

Perhaps military conscription in all the occupied countries? First off it can be argued that Germany suffered from unreliable allies, often causing 'trouble' as Mussolini did in the Balkans, not 'pitching in' as Japan did against Russia, and expanding the war, or simply being too technologically backward or inneficient (as was the case with romania, hungary, bulgaria...). The volunteers in the Waffen-SS did perform well on some occasions due to their ideological motivation (they did join willingly after all) but also due to their advanced weaponry and training. Severe lack of manpower later on in the war could have been avoided with mass conscription like this no? I know many foreigners were drafted into labor..but perhaps giving them guns would have taken it too far?

Protecting all facilities of production underground, although time consuming, would have after the beginning of the major allied bombing offensives become extremely profitable.

The scrapping of all 'wonder weapon' programs such as the retaliation weapons could have funneled more cash, manpower, and resources into making more TANKS TANKS TANKS!!

In my humble opinion, a great increase in portable machine guns such as the -34 and -42 as well as their ammunition, along with a gross increase in the production of hand-held anti-tank devices (ie panzerfausts) would have contributed greatly to the functionality of infantry units stripped of costly heavy weaponry.

__________________

Mein Leben!