the system seemed far too complex, and i think that was a factor in germanys downfall

__________________
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." -Winston Churchill

For example making Himmler commander of the Army group in the decisive battles in 1945? Hitler was really losing it.

__________________

Yes but then again by 1945 Hitler could have made anyone a commander and it really wouldnt have done much good.

__________________
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

Stefan posts:
posted 06 December, 2006 08:21 AM


Historian #6: Keep in mind that whilst Germany was in a period of military build up, so was the USSR. Soviet production was higher than that of Germany, reserves of manpower were greater, Stalin knew a war was coming, he just didn't believe Hitler would start it at that point. Seriously, if Germany had started the war in 1943 the outcome would have been just the same, Germany may have been able to defeat Britain at sea but at the end of the day Russia is a big place and would have been doggedly defended, I can't see Germany winning

Please consider again. Had the war been postpond until 1943, then with Germany able to knock Britain out of the war within a year of so, then that would have freed up the majority of the Luftwaffe which was stationed in the West opposite England.

Consider too that the German-Soviet war would not begun until Britain was in pretty dire straits. As it was, Churchill was getting very worried until Hitler made the huge blunder of attacking the USSR.

Yes, the defeat of Germany was determined by the War in the East, but that war was fairly closely run. What would have been the impact of all the equipment, men, energy and mental concentration had the Germans no longer had had to worry of the West?

And though the Soviets, too, were developing their industrial capacity, on paper, at the same or greater rate than Germany, they were also not as a stable and united people as they were once they attacked.what would have been the impact of discordant chords of another purge or two by Stalin upon the morale of the Red Army?

Well, it is all speculation.

But the biggest impact of the removal of Britain in a 1943 launch war may have been the removal of Bletchy Park and the signel intelligence there derived. I am not just talking about Ultra intelligence but the Magic intelligence from Ambassador Ohara (Japanese Ambassador stationed in Berlin), who told Allied Intelligence what Hitler was thinking.

Eliminate the British and it likely that Franco of Spain would have been less hesitant about supplying Wolfram ore to Germany.

Eliminate Britain and it is likely the Traffic via submarine between Germany and Japan would have been more productive. As it was very unproductive in real life does not demonstrate what it could have done. As it was, it provided Japan with the technology to build a prototype of the ME-262 Jet. Given time and a defeated Britain, what would have been the impact of the Japanse hhegemony on the war on USA, and the eventual impact that would have had on the war with America, and how would that have impacted the German war with Russia.

There are just too many ramifications to puzzle out with a quick dismissal.

Just flipped through a book titled "How Hitler could have won" at Barnes & noble. He mentions the nuke topic & commented that the US would be much less likely to use it against a Germany in control of Europe, very different to a nearly defeated Japan.

He goes on to mention essentially what has been covered before in the southern route strategy, which is to concentrate on running British out of Egypt, capturing Iranian black gold, which then puts them at Baku's doorstep & well you can guess the rest.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...ldhavewon.aspx

The way to victory was not through a frontal attack on the Soviet Union but an indirect approach through North Africa. This route was so obvious that all the British leaders saw it, as did a number of the German leaders, including Alfred Jodl, chief of operations of the armed forces; Erich Raeder, commander of the German Navy, and Erwin Rommel, destined to gain fame in North Africa as the Desert Fox.

After the destruction of France's military power in 1940, Britain was left with only a single armored division to protect Egypt and the Suez Canal. Germany had twenty armored divisions, none being used. If the Axis--- Germany and its ally Italy---had used only four of these divisions to seize the Suez Canal, the British Royal Navy would have been compelled to abandon the Mediterranean Sea, turning it into an Axis lake. French North Africa--- Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia---could have been occupied, and German forces could have seized Dakar in Senegal on the west coast of Africa, from which submarines and aircraft could have dominated the main South Atlantic sea routes.

With no hope of aid, Yugoslavia and Greece would have been forced to come to terms. Since Hitler gained the support of Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, Germany would have achieved control of all southeastern Europe without committing a single German soldier.

Once the Suez Canal was taken, the way would have been open to German armored columns to overrun Palestine, Transjordan, the Arabian peninsula, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. This would given Germany unlimited supplies of the single commodity it needed most: oil.

As important as oil was for the conduct of modern war, the greatest advantages of German occupation of the Arab lands and Iran would have been to isolate Turkey, threaten British control of India, and place German tanks and guns within striking distance of Soviet oil fields in the Caucasus and along the shores of the Caspian Sea. Turkey would have been forced to become an ally or grant transit rights to German forces, Britain would have had to exert all its strength to protect India, and the Soviet Union would have gone to any lengths to preserve peace with Germany because of its perilous position.

Germany need not have launched a U-boat or air war against British shipping and cities, because British participation in the war would have become increasingly irrelevant. Britain could never have built enough military power to invade the Continent alone.

Unless the strength of the Soviet Union were added, the United States could not have projected sufficient military force across the Atlantic Ocean, even over a period of years, to reconquer Europe by amphibious invasion in the face of an untouched German war machine. Since the United States was increasingly preoccupied with the threat of Japan, it almost certainly would not have challenged Germany.

Thus, Germany would have been left with a virtually invincible empire and the leisure to develop defenses and resources that, in time, would permit it to match the strength of the United States. Though Britain might have refused to make peace, a de facto cease-fire would have ensued. The United States would have concentrated on defense of the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific. Even if the United States had proceeded with development of the atomic bomb, it would have hesitated to unleash it against Germany.

One of the few smart decisions he did make was replacing Himmler with Heinrici in command of Vistula. Obviously in the longrun it only delayed the inevitable but neverless a good choice. But I guess any choice was a good one over Himmler though.

__________________

Hitler also decided to send tanks/troops to the Hungary area in 1945 when the Soviet main attack was Berlin in the end. Well, it did shorten the war but definitely Guderian was rather pissed with this decision as he knew they needed all the forces as possible to protect Berlin.

__________________

Hitler's mad thinking yet again.

__________________
Man of the Year 1942

Regards, Richard

Himmler was a brilliant tactitioner and ruthless, so clear why Hitler gave him command.

Regardless of tanks etc or the lack of them in Berlin, the USSR outnumbered the Germans by more than 2:1 anyway, so defeat was inevitable.

Only down to heroes like Mohnke and Weilding that the Berlin defenses held as long as they did imo

__________________

More like 5-1


Heroes you say??? Well that would mean that the Germans were the good guys.....wow I had no idea!!

__________________
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

Please give us some instances of Heinrich Himmler's 'brilliant' tactical successes. I am rather curious about this as the only field command he had was as head of Army Group Vistula, and for only 2 months at that, spending a significant amount of that treating flu.

__________________

Sorry guys my mistake remember reading a while back about a certain battle of Oder-Neisse and had misread the bit where it said Gen. Gotthard Heinrici replaced Himmler midway through the parapatory stages of the battle, and it was Heinrici who's tactical brilliance made the stand last so long, and not Himmler

__________________

Mohnke really did not have anything to do with the defense of Berlin. It all was on Weilding's shoulders. Heinrici was on the outskirts of Berlin. Also, taking a city as large as Berlin is not an easy thing to do and worse yet with tanks. The Russians actually did not plan the attack on Berlin and were focusing on reaching the Reichstag, they actually missed several opportunities to end the battle sooner had then not by passed the Chancellery or the HQ for the defenders.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Mohnke was defending the inner citadel (Reichstag and Hitler's bunker area) and was not operating under the command of Weilding.

Weilding surrendered the city's garrison (what few soldiers there were left) a day or so before Mohnke (and the few soldiers and officers he had left) did.

I was not questioning the Soviet attack on Berlin, personally I think the Red Army was terribly organised, with 'hap hazard' tactics and the 'throw millions of men in' approach, causing them to win many battles down to sheer numbers, rather than military brilliance.

E.g Stalingrad - The encircled 6th Army ran out of ammo because they shot so many soviets! No point fighting with no ammo left so may as well surrender eh! (P.s I know there were other factors before anyone starts but am just proving a point..

Tanks are vulnerable in street fighting, and you are correct in saying that Berlin was not an easy city to take.

Personally if I was a Russian General at the time I would have laid seige to Berlin and levelled it with artillery and air strikes until the Germans surrendered, which they would have done eventually..

__________________

Considering your ability in proferring glaring mix-ups, it appears to me that your present and future utterances will have to be taken with a fair amount of salt.

__________________

Considering your ability in proferring glaring mix-ups, it appears to me that your present and future utterances will have to be taken with a fair amount of salt. </font>[/quote]With the amount of facts/names/dates floating around my mind there's no wonder I made that error, the only one I've made by the way, and I was quick to correct myself and provide the correct info.

Clearly if you knew so much you could've easily corrected me at the time...

__________________

Interesting..........and here I sat thinking that the Germans gave up Stalingrad due to lack of supplies getting into the city like FOOD.

This must have been the case due to the encirclement accomplished by the very same Russians the Germans were soooo busy shooting. [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________
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

Which is why I said I know there were other factors involved......

No ammo, no fuel, no food = 6th Army surrenders or dies there, shame they were made to march halfway accross the USSR afterwards with all but a few thousand dying in the process.

Remember reading the Diary of the Colonel who was charged with guarding the Dept Store area, saying how by the last few days his men could no longer lift their rifles, due to malnourishment and the cold, and how the Russians sent small squads during the night to steal HMG's etc from his defenses.

__________________

Shame they were made to march halfway accroos the USSR afterward???

Rhyd,

You cant possibly be serious!!! Shame you say??
Yes its a shame.....Shame that 30 million Soviets died as a result of the Germans invasion. These were not the good guys.. on the contrary millions suffered where ever these soldiers that it seems you admire so much entered. I personally have absolutely no sympathy for them.

For what its worth, the Soviets couldnt transport their own soldiers, they also had to walk on foot at that time. Now thats also a shame.

__________________
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

As a historian it's important not to bring personal 'feelings' into such issues, as that clouds things..

If I was being asked my personal opinion on the matter now thats a different thing.

I respect soldiers who were there just doing their job.

You can't sit there and tell me that every single combatant in the German forces were 'evil'??

Most will have been professional soldiers, doing what they were ordered to do wether or not they thought it right or wrong, much like todays armed forces as you will know.

I take it you have spent time reading some German Officers & Soldiers diaries at some point and seen their opinions/perspectives at the hell they were being put through at the time?

I'm equally sure things will have been much the same on the soviet side but I've not spent any great time studying things from their perspective tbh so would rather not comment.

__________________