How could Germany have won the war? - Page 2

Emperor · #26 (**permalink**) October 27th, 2007, 05:53 AM

Battle of the Atlantic. It was the thing that worried Churchill.

If the Germans passed on Norway, thus preserving their surface fleet they might have been better off. Dumping even more resources into the sub program would have helped them too. Or if they somehow got their hands on the French fleet. Or better air/sea coordination.

Richard · #27 (**permalink**) October 27th, 2007, 10:28 AM

How Germany won the war

They got there sums right and built a number of atomic bombs
They built the aircraft to deliver the atomic bombs
drop the atomic bombs
End of war
Hell on Earth

There you go case closed, now let's get around to Za's place for his big party warp factor 10 people.

tikilal · #28 (**permalink**) October 27th, 2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloniksp

Crying??Are you kidding?!?! Now that there is no USSR I can where jeans!

Not enough to kill and torture but they outlaws jeans... what a horrible time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

The only way I see for the Germans to pull off a "win" in WW 2 is once France falls concentrate on either defeating or getting a peace from Britain period. No invasion of the East. Let the Italians swing in the wing. Concentrate on ending the war you have before starting any new ones.
Also, keep the US out of it. One way to do this is once Japan attacks the US Germany declares war on Japan. It ends Lend-Lease and pretty much halts US operations in the Atlantic. It might even have forced Britain to negotiate a peace.

Interesting, very very interesting!

FramerT · #29 (**permalink**) October 27th, 2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

The only way I see for the Germans to pull off a "win" in WW 2 is once France falls concentrate on either defeating or getting a peace from Britain period. No invasion of the East. Let the Italians swing in the wing. Concentrate on ending the war you have before starting any new ones.
Also, keep the US out of it. One way to do this is once Japan attacks the US Germany declares war on Japan. It ends Lend-Lease and pretty much halts US operations in the Atlantic. It might even have forced Britain to negotiate a peace.

I would think Germany had to attack East, at least as far as Hungary. For oil and raw materials.

Sloniksp · #30 (**permalink**) October 27th, 2007, 07:42 PM

I agree with T.A.

Germany should have kept what she had before June 22nd 1941 and not get greedy!!

As for supplies, Hitler's buddy Stalin was providing everything needed. In fact the last train filled with supplies was crossing the border a few hours before Barbarossa began.

SPARTAN688 · #31 (**permalink**) November 10th, 2007, 11:44 AM

Adolf hitler said he would have won the war if he total restaffed his armys generals etc so maybe if he done that he could have won the war.

secondly if they din't invade russia i think they would have had a better chance.

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

The only way I see for the Germans to pull off a "win" in WW 2 is once France falls concentrate on either defeating or getting a peace from Britain period. No invasion of the East. Let the Italians swing in the wing. Concentrate on ending the war you have before starting any new ones.
Also, keep the US out of it. One way to do this is once Japan attacks the US Germany declares war on Japan. It ends Lend-Lease and pretty much halts US operations in the Atlantic. It might even have forced Britain to negotiate a peace..[/quote]

America would have eventually declare war on germany even if germany had declared war on japan after pearl harbour becuase they were already supplying england with weapons etc.

in conclusion in a war or battle there are many things the losing side could have done and should have done but never do it thus why they are the losing side.........

Richard · #32 (**permalink**) November 10th, 2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloniksp

Germany should have kept what she had before June 22nd 1941 and not get greedy!!

Problem was Hitler laid it all down in his book back in the 1920's and when he came to power that vision took shape as his army rolled up Europe in 39/41. We all know that Russia was the begging of the end for that mad man.

Sloniksp · #33 (**permalink**) November 10th, 2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

Problem was Hitler laid it all down in his book back in the 1920's and when he came to power that vision took shape as his army rolled up Europe in 39/41. We all know that Russia was the begging of the end for that mad man.

Yes indeed, the irony is that Stalin read his book and knew an attack was iminent.

Za Rodinu · #34 (**permalink**) November 10th, 2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPARTAN688

Adolf hitler said he would have won the war if he total restaffed his armys generals etc so maybe if he done that he could have won the war.

That's an entirely original point of view in this forum! Now it's all the generals fault!

Will you please tell us:
a) which generals you have in mind,
b) when would they be replaced,
c) and by whom?

Oh, and

Shadow Master · #35 (**permalink**) November 10th, 2007, 04:25 PM

Interesting:

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

The only way I see for the Germans to pull off a "win" in WW 2 is once France falls concentrate on either defeating or getting a peace from Britain period. No invasion of the East. Let the Italians swing in the wing. Concentrate on ending the war you have before starting any new ones.
Also, keep the US out of it. One way to do this is once Japan attacks the US Germany declares war on Japan. It ends Lend-Lease and pretty much halts US operations in the Atlantic. It might even have forced Britain to negotiate a peace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow Master

This is kinda a goofy what if:

Hitler and the Japanese had promised to co-operate in the wars. When the Germans invaded Russia, the expectation was that Japan would declare war (If not invade themselves) as well. This didn't happen.

On DEC 7, Japan attacks USA (and others).
On DEC 8, USA declares war on Japan.
On DEC 9, Germany declares war on USA.

Japan still doesn't declare war on Russia, and now Germany has to fight the two largest industrialized nations, both at the same time!

But what if:
Germany takes stock of the situation and declares war on japan! Propaganda wise, Hitler has FDR in a deep, dark hole. If Germany makes overtures of alliance with USA Vs. Japan (this costs Germany nothing and prevents USA war on Germany), then the whole war in Europe will have an entirely different future!

Imagine the surprise!

Thoughts anyone?

When I first posted this I had the dates (for the US DoW on Japan and the German DoW on US) wrong, but I had in mind that Germany would have already taken Briton either in the winter of 1940, or surely by mid summer 1941. Either way, long before US could dislodge their ground and air forces after Dec7.

If Germany had taken Briton by Dec 7, 1940 (a full year before Pearl Harbor), then there would be no excuse for American forces to be fighting in Europe for several years at least. Had the German nation been competent conquerors {read as "no Nazi's"}, British and French shipyards would be cranking out merchant carriers {Large Freighters whose top cargo holds were designed as duel purpose storage spaces/aircraft hangers and roofed with a flight deck}. Millions of French and British infantry troops would be available for any future assault on USSR (if such were even needed) and for expansion of the German empire.

My preliminary thoughts on how the Germans could have made better use of their limited industrial assets too make the most economical war possible have been posted here:

German Tonnage War Strategy

In this tread I tried {and failed, badly} too get across the idea that the BoB and the battle for control of the North Atlantic could most economically have been fought as one and the same. Read this tread. Understand the concept of evolving the First World War's submarine battles into flying boat-torpedo bombers. With the submarines serving in a support role {as mobile, submersible spare gas tanks} instead of front line combatants. Basically:

Planes are cheaper too build than subs >>> use planes too attack convoys.
Planes are cheaper to replace than subs >>> use subs to pick up downed pilots.
Planes can be built in greater numbers, faster, and with greater security than subs.
Planes can see farther, move faster, and deliver their torpedoes too several different convoys targets each day. Something submarines cannot do.

I have as yet not posted on how the Germans could have made a workable sealion. That is in the works...

More later.

Shadow Master · #36 (**permalink**) November 10th, 2007, 04:42 PM

Actually, I must respectfully disagree with you on this point.

FDR was very much aware {as the everyday American was not} of the danger that a united Nazi Europe would pose to the rest of the world. Public opinion would not have allowed FDR to openly intervene in the British/German war {which is why he was forced to use indirect methods such as lend lease in the first place}, He would be booted out of office summarily for asking the US congress for a DoW against a nation that had just declared war on Japan for their sneak attack on pearl harbor!

Picture it:
FDR's speech to the nation... "Yesterday, Dec 7 1941, a day that will live in Infamy..." I ask congress for a DoW against the Empire of Japan, and oh yea, how about a DoW against the Germans {who just made a DoW against those who attacked us}, Right? Too be followed immediately by thunderous demands for impeachment, ect...

Welcome too the forums, by the way.

SPARTAN688 · #37 (**permalink**) November 11th, 2007, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessex Wyvern

I'll agree with you that Rommel did OK, with the 7 Panzer Div in 1940.
BUT....
If he was THAT good why did Hitler send him to the side-show of North Africa and not the main event in Russia?

well hitler did think of him highly becuase he was the only infantry commander to have a panzer division under his command and rommel didn't just handle north africa he also had command of the German forces opposing the Allied cross-channel in the invasion fo normandy. and also the invasion of france. and many more battles that i can't rember

SPARTAN688 · #38 (**permalink**) November 11th, 2007, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

That's an entirely original point of view in this forum! Now it's all the generals fault!

Will you please tell us:
a) which generals you have in mind,
b) when would they be replaced,
c) and by whom?

Oh, and

well A)adolf hitler said all generals so all generals.
B)he said he should have restaffed his generals before the war when he first gained power
C)well by other officers i am guessing there would be alot of promotions i guess himmler would still be in there and so would rommel becuase they all became leaders after hitler had gained power so they proably would of been apart of the restafing i do not realy agree with this veiw becuase i doubt the generals would have made much of a diffrence up against russia and america in the long run. it could have just been adolf hitler blaming the losing of the war on someone else. and thanks for the welcome

Za Rodinu · #39 (**permalink**) November 11th, 2007, 05:50 AM

Hey, leave the poor Bold key off, it looks awful!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPARTAN688

well A)adolf hitler said all generals so all generals.

That would be interesting in terms of severance and early retirement pay. Unless he took the Long Knives approach and shot them all

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPARTAN688

B)he said he should have restaffed his generals before the war when he first gained power

And he said that when exactly?

And now let's split this paragraph:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPARTAN688

{1}C)well by other officers i am guessing there would be alot of promotions {2}i guess himmler would still be in there and so would rommel becuase they all became leaders after hitler had gained power so they proably would of been apart of the restafing {3}i do not realy agree with this veiw becuase i doubt the generals would have made much of a diffrence up against russia and america in the long run. {4}it could have just been adolf hitler blaming the losing of the war on someone else. {5}and thanks for the welcome

1 - First of all in peacetime having someone promoted is a can of worms because you simply have to have your Colonel going through some Staff College to get the proper graduation (a course can take years) and then he gets to be a Majorgeneral. More years and seniority will bring the guy to Leutnantgeneral and General.

It takes years to form a proper Chief of Staff, and don't say anything about the Quartermasters and other logistics specialists!

You can't simply pull a colonel 'from the ranks' and give him a new set of epaulettes and call him a general. In wartime this is normal as generals get dismissed, shot, hanged, or become casualties.

Besides, what you say not borne out by reality. Just look at the Campaign of France. How many Feldmarschalls were created after that? So Adolf couldn't so unhappy with his generals, that was only his usual hogwash.

2 - Himmler was too busy being chief of the entire SS apparatus. One of Heinie the Chicken Farmer was he always took more load than his capacity allowed. In any case he was no field commander at all, unless you count the sorry incident of him being Commander Army of the Vistula when he spent most of his time in a spa curing a convenient "flu". And in any case the Waffeen-SS (which didn't even have that name at the time) was composed only of 3-4 underequipped regiments.

Rommel's higher abilities has been largely disputed in this forum, but there is no doubt he made a very competent PzDiv Commander in the French Campaign, so yes, he could be part of the plan but watch out for the Peter Principle.

3 - Now you're talking sense. Your plan of restaffing the General corps with rookie colonels would be a complete disaster

4 - Bullseye!

5 - Well, you're new to the forum and we are polite people and appreciate more polite people

But be warned, when you stick your neck out with obviously crazy ideas and, worse, badly thought out arguments, some of our members can be ruthless and tear you to tiny shreds, so do your homework and think beforehand the pros and cons of an argument if you want to survive in this forum

SPARTAN688 · #40 (**permalink**) November 11th, 2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

Hey, leave the poor Bold key off, it looks awful!

That would be interesting in terms of severance and early retirement pay. Unless he took the Long Knives approach and shot them all

And he said that when exactly?

And now let's split this paragraph:

1 - First of all in peacetime having someone promoted is a can of worms because you simply have to have your Colonel going through some Staff College to get the proper graduation (a course can take years) and then he gets to be a Majorgeneral. More years and seniority will bring the guy to Leutnantgeneral and General.

It takes years to form a proper Chief of Staff, and don't say anything about the Quartermasters and other logistics specialists!

You can't simply pull a colonel 'from the ranks' and give him a new set of epaulettes and call him a general. In wartime this is normal as generals get dismissed, shot, hanged, or become casualties.

Besides, what you say not borne out by reality. Just look at the Campaign of France. How many Feldmarschalls were created after that? So Adolf couldn't so unhappy with his generals, that was only his usual hogwash.

2 - Himmler was too busy being chief of the entire SS apparatus. One of Heinie the Chicken Farmer was he always took more load than his capacity allowed. In any case he was no field commander at all, unless you count the sorry incident of him being Commander Army of the Vistula when he spent most of his time in a spa curing a convenient "flu". And in any case the Waffeen-SS (which didn't even have that name at the time) was composed only of 3-4 underequipped regiments.

Rommel's higher abilities has been largely disputed in this forum, but there is no doubt he made a very competent PzDiv Commander in the French Campaign, so yes, he could be part of the plan but watch out for the Peter Principle.

3 - Now you're talking sense. Your plan of restaffing the General corps with rookie colonels would be a complete disaster

4 - Bullseye!

5 - Well, you're new to the forum and we are polite people and appreciate more polite people

But be warned, when you stick your neck out with obviously crazy ideas and, worse, badly thought out arguments, some of our members can be ruthless and tear you to tiny shreds, so do your homework and think beforehand the pros and cons of an argument if you want to survive in this forum

what the hell look at what i orignaly siad i said HITLER said not me.......it was not and argument but a statement that hitler blamed his generals so i didn't stick my neck out at all................

and he said this in his bunker after himmler had betrayed him in the bunker a couple of days before he killed himself

[quote=SPARTAN688;247697]Adolf hitler said he would have won the war if he total restaffed his armys generals etc so maybe if he done that he could have won the war.

Za Rodinu · #41 (**permalink**) November 11th, 2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPARTAN688

what the hell look at what i orignaly siad i said HITLER said not me.......it was not and argument but a statement that hitler blamed his generals so i didn't stick my neck out at all................

and he said this in his bunker after himmler had betrayed him in the bunker a couple of days before he killed himself

Easy there, I'm not holding you responsible for anything. So I should have had to address my comments to Adolf but as he's unavailable at the moment you had to take the flak instead

Ahh, timing is extremely important for this utterance. So he said it when it was all already lost. I was under the impression (wrongly) that you meant some earler occasion, but in the Last Days (and before that) Adolf said anything except that at least part of the fault was also his.

------

Again, I'm not by any means trying to be hostile to you!

Bring out your subjects and support them with good arguments. That will then create discusions which will then be interesting. That's what we all are here for, to have interesting discussions on WW2

The worst thing that a beginner (or an old-timer!) can do is blurt out some silliness and then be unable to provide arguments, sources, contexts, etc.

So please don't feel annoyed at me, consider it a misunderstanding and water under the bridge.

Cheers!
Za

SPARTAN688 · #42 (**permalink**) November 11th, 2007, 11:36 AM

oh sorry then

plz forgive the nooby

Za Rodinu · #43 (**permalink**) November 11th, 2007, 01:29 PM

What nooby? We are all alike here! Add 15 more posts and you'll get your first medal, a Purple Heart!

And for your good attitude I'm awarding you your first reputation points. Your little grey square under your post count will turn green

Cheers!
Za