could hitler win the war?

Well, the German record for rapes wasn't particularly high. The whole idea of sullying oneself with 'untermenche' or something like that.

That said, I do seem to remember a Soviet officer commenting along the lines of 'at least it will teach them never to start another war.' It doesn't make it right but the Germans were indeed reaping the seeds planted three years before.

 

That's not fresh news, we discussed this already at length here in another thread a few months ago. Shall we go over it again?

 

The true shame is the suicidal decisions made by Hitler.
In the beginning of his conquest, he reached his objective without fighting(most skillful according to Sun).
Then he disturbed his enemy's plan with a suprise attack.(second best according to Sun).
After that he ordered his troops to engage a direct assult against his enemy(third best according to Sun).
Finally, he ordered his troops to lay siege on a fortified city(worst according to Sun).

If i may qoute form the Art of War by Sun Tzu, : "When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, the men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength, and if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the state will not be equal to the strain. Never forget: When your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted, and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue."

 

[ 19. December 2006, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Ironcross ]

 

Y did u post this twice Ironcross??

 

Russia, yes; England, perhaps; America, no. To be succinct.

Funny, the figures I've seen indicate that even disregarding the civilian deaths the Soviet military losses were nearly double the Axis losses on the East Front. Of course, a lot of those deaths were of Soviet POWs in German hands. Removing them from the equation still doesn't bring the military casualties for the two sides into parity. Axis losses on the East Front are estimated at between 3 and 4 and a half million while the Soviets lost more than 6 and a half million kia/mia. (I have seen some estimates that the Soviet military losses were double this number).

We should remember as well that these losses were not evenly distributed throughout the war. The Russian losses were enormous during the first couple of years while German losses, though heavy in 1941 and 1942, skyrocketed in 1943 and became catastrophic only in 1944 by which time the writing was on the wall and the Germans were facing overwhelming odds. It wasn't really until Operation Bagration in summer 1944 that German military losses became greater than Soviet losses.

 

Here is a little something written by David M. Glantz. A U.S. colonel and one of the leading historians of the eastern front today. This has originally been provided by none other then our very own ZA.

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf

Scroll down to page 14 and read the TOTAL GERMAN PERMANENT LOSSES IN THE EAST..... Something tells me you'll be surprised.

The Germans lost a lot more men then the Soviets in the Battle of Dnieper, which was fought one year before Operation Bagration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Lower_Dnieper

Sorry im a little sick and didnt really feel like looking for a better site then Wiki, as im tired and want to get some rest.

 

Thanks for the pdf. Looks like an interesting read. He does seem to provide evidence of a 2:3 ration in German losses to Russian ones.

Good point. I guess after Kursk is when Germany really started to get hammered and was losing more than the Russians. Cheers, and hope you get better soon.

 

I suppose the losses section on the German side starts to get high during and after Stalingrad when Hitler gets to the Fortress and not a step back policy.

 

Personally think that England would never surrender whilst still under the leadership of Churchill even if 100 nuclear bombs were dropped.

 

Thank you friend, me too.

 

I take it you mean Great Britain?

 

I wonder if he had not misused resources on the disgrace that was the Holocaust if things may have been different?

 

Worse that that, I remember in the past we discussed here what would be the effects of a radically different policy regarding Jews, instead of genocide using them as normal citizens. What would it be without the loss of know-how, without the intellectual brain drain. Germany with Einstein, Edward Teller, Lise Meitner, etc. Can't find it right now though, but the thread is out there

Hitler's Gift : http://www.arcadepub.com/book/?GCOI=55970100356320&fa=preview

 

I think the only mistake Germany made that lost them the war was that they underestimated their enemy. Because of that, they didn’t reach their military production peak until late 1944(under heavy allied bombing). That was why they have almost always been outnumbered. Can you imagine what it would be like if they reached their military production peak during 1940, and moved some of their factories eastward to shorten the supply line in 1941(if needed)? What would the outcome be if one T-34 has to face 5 Tigers? Russian stubbornness is no match for a bullet. If Hitler mobilized all German's industrial potential early in the war, then Operation Barbarossa would end up successful, North Africa would belong to Germany, Battle of Britain would also be successful.

 

Interesting point Ironcross. It’s my understanding Hitler ended government support of some projects including nuclear, out of anticipation that the war would end soon with their victory.

 

Well apparently they were not expecting war to be declared, so it was probably all in the mix until Hitler decided the time was right.

I was surprised by the German attitude towards Enigma, ie they knew it could be broken, but didn't believe anyone would bother to do it. They didn't reckon on "the Geese that lay the golden eggs but did not cackle."


Without the braindrain caused by their anti semitic policies, and industry at full production (say a couple of years later in peace time) history could have been very different.

 

Anyway, by 1943 it is my understanding that Speer was checking all plans and anything that would take more than a year to make complete was left outside of funding.

 

"if Hitler did not cancel the German nuclear program"

That is only part of the problem. Hitler stated in his second book that the only way for Germany to survive was to take Russian land. I agree that it was likely the best long term idea - since it would prevent Germany having to depend on trade overseas and thus prevented Britain from starving Germany by cutting off sea routes. Caucasus oil and Russian minerals were important too. The only trouble with Hitler's thought was he did not realize how backward Russian farming was going to be for Germans. The Germans who invaded were shocked that it was really just a vast wilderness with very harsh conditions and no roads to speak of (Knappe described it like stepping back in time 200 years). Hitler envisioned German farmers moving into that area to farm. I don't think that would have worked. A better idea would have been to use the peoples already there to do the farming since they understood how to farm the area and were used to the primitive conditions (but of course the SS-Einsatzgruppen had other ideas about that). Hitler’s dream of making Germany totally self sufficient in everything by taking Russia, might have taken place in a few decades with a lot of investment, but not in the short time needed to win the war. Once he gambled with Poland, causing Britain to declare war – something I think he did not plan on – his only real option was to invade England – a very bad option indeed.

As for his nuclear program – since his whole philosophy revolved around 18th through 19th century thinking (and this becomes plain when you read his 2nd book) and his firm belief in the need to take farm lands in the east – Hitler was fixated on the notion of an Army-solution to everything. He stated over and over in his 2nd book that Germany’s only important weapon was it’s historical ability to field a great army. He saw navies, and I think even air forces, as things many orders of less value than the army. So he tended to only see the Luftwaffe as a close support for his army, and this is likely why he never gave the navy the planes it needed, or why Germany never tried to build a strategic bomber force. I mean – think what heavy four engine bombers might have done to Moscow or other Russian cities (most of which would have burned very well). Instead Hitler’s plan called for pushing panzers into Moscow or Stalingrad and bringing artillery up to the outskirts of cities. But the same effect could have been attained with strategic bombers as early as August 1941! Hitler seems also to have written off strategic bombing when his misused ‘TACTICAL’ Luftwaffe failed to attain a STRATEGIC victory over Britain – (you get my point I hope).

NUCLEAR SCIENCE: To Hitler’s 19th century thinking, the nuclear sciences ONLY presented a threat to his beloved wet-dreams of a Germanic Grand Armée. After all, if the idea of an atomic bomb was indeed true, it would mean there was no need for an army full of little gefreiter-Hitler-clones. This would mean Hitler’s fixation on ARMIES was entirely obsolete, and one thing few people would not accuse Hitler of was being flexible in thought. So what was his reaction to nuclear physics? He sneered and called it a name: “Jew Science”. I hope everyone has read about the fact that Hitler’s policies were trashing out the German university system, by replacing a lot of the course work with military exercises and marching. Hitler’s speeches attacked intellectualism and as a result many university students (including engineers) dropped out or almost did because they felt like their studies were un-patriotic. Hitler was basically converting Germany’s school system into a huge version of the Hitler Youth. Camping, marching drills, military exercises were intruding into high schools and universities. But this all went along very well with Hitler’s notion of the need for Germans to RETURN to their roots in FARMING. Farming and Armies – where his favorite fixations. University students were often driven out of their classes into the countryside to help with the FARMING. Hitler’s notions were entirely archaic! This was not helped by the fact that most of the German thinkers he was fixated on were from centuries past.

So, Hitler drove out his Jewish scientists and practically handed FDR the Atomic bomb on a silver platter.

Could Germany win the war? Not with Hitler at the helm. Impossible.
The saying: "You brought a knife to a gunfight?" applied to Hitler - trying to depend mainly on armies at the dawn of the nuclear age.

 

Thanx for your posting Seatco,

one a couple of things I´d like to comment about my view:

The German strategic bombing was not possible due to the financial problem. They could not build an air force of strategic bombers with the money or the time they had in their hands. So it was all 2-engine or dive bombers, and everything was also made capable of dive bombing so the speed was reduced making the planes easier for the enemy fighters to catch.

One of the things Hitler loved was vengeance. That is why Hitler spent almost all resources to V-weapons and bombers. Even in 1944 bombers were used agaisnt Britain in "large amounts" with huge losses even if the value of those attacks was virtually nil.