How Hitler could have won

Actually you can and indeed it was done a number of times in WW2. The question is how far from your supply depots you can do so and the answer in Western Europe for US forces was over 300 miles.

A rather meaningless sentence. Trains varied considerably in what they could carry as did trucks. In the case of US "deuce and a halfs" they could carry 2.5 tons off road or 5 tons on roads without overloading but the latter was fairly common.

A US divison on the offense consumed about 700-750 tons a day. See: http://www.historynet.com/red-ball-express so you want supplies for over 18 additional divisions?

Since your assumed quantity of trucks is not only questionable but rather obviously excessive your conclusions are irrelevant. Note also that it wouldn't be just trucks moving the supplies in any case.

Clearly your example was rather far fetched but then that's not what we have been discussing either is it?

 

Well said lwd, I too am of the conviction that opening Antwerp sooner would've allowed the Allies to mount their next big offensive earlier as well, as large quantities supplies would reach front line units sooner now that the supply lines shorter, and to be honest, even if Market Garden had succeeded, I don't see the Allies getting far, their supply problems still be present if Antwerp remained closed.

 

It could not be done,otherwise ,it would have be done,and it was not done : thus.....

Even after the opening of Antwerp,there were not enough supplies and men available to start a big offensive in 1944.

In november,without Antwerp,1,402,080 ton were discharged at the continental ports.

In december,with Antwerp,1,555,819 ton were discharged at the continental ports .

If Antwerp was open in november,the increase could be at most 153000 ton (difference between 1,555 and 1,402 ) but the amount that would leave Antwerp would be less,much less .

Whatever,with 1,402,000 ton discharged in november,there was no big offensive.

With 1,555,OOO ton discharged in december,there was no big offensive .

It is obvious that with 1,555,000 ton discharged in november,there would also not be an offensive that would finish the war in 1944.

 

Your inability to construct a logical argument continues to astound me. Of course in this case it is not even clear what "it" is given the number of flawed arguments, fact and logic free assumptions/opinions, and strawmen you have introduced.

Well you are the one who insist on talking about a major offensive in 44. In this case I'd agree that you aren't going to see much more than and additional 150,000 tons if that in Novemeber. December output would likely increase as well though. Hard to tell how much would leave Antwerp especially without knowing home much destruction could be avoided in regards to the local logistics assets. It's worth noteing however that the above is almost enough to keep 3 divisions or a corp fully supplied for offensive action for a month, The fact that they are no longer being supplied from France would mean that at least a similar size force and more likely a much bigger one could be maintained at the same level.

Based on the logic and opinions above your conclusion is hardly warrented. Looking at additional information though would lead one to that conclusion. Which hardly supports your overall position. Market Garden wasn't going to end the war in 44 any more than opening Antwerp would. Then there's the problem that you again can't differentiate between your opinions and facts. As it was there were two major offensives during the period in question. The one centered on taking Lorraine and reaching the Rhine and Ruhr rives and operation Queen. German resistance in the former broke in November just when we are talking about extra supplies starting to show up. Stilll not likely to end the war in 44 but leaving the western allies in a stronger position in January of 45 than they were historically.

 

Nonsense :MG was the only possibility to win the war in 1944. An earlier opening of Antwerp would not have shortened the war .
There were NO two major offensives in the autumn of 1944,but 2 small offensives (for political reasons) to exhaust the Germans .

 

I agree the above is nonsence. MG in no way represented a possibility of ending the war in '44. Indeed it would rerquire a reasoned response from the Nazi high command which had it been present would already have surrendered. So it was quite obvious to anyone looking at it rationally that MG wasn't going to end the war in 44.

That is completely unjustified speculation on your part. There is a very good chance it would have helped up the allies in Germany weeks or even months earlier. Which certainly would have had that potential. As it was historically the wesern allies had a decent chance of beating the Soviets to Berlin but chose not to. If they are in Germany that much earlier then it becomes a much more attractive option.

I've seen them listed as such. Given your lack of understanding and judgement I'll go with what I read as opposed to your opinoin on whether or not they should be considered "major".

 

The chance of beating the Soviets to Berlin is irrelevant, because the right decision had been taken to give Berlin to the Soviets (and the Soviets would give back the half of Berlin to the West):Berlin was not worth the bones of an allied soldier :if Stalin was willing to sacrifice a lot of his soldiers to conquer Berlin, why would the West prevent him from doing so ?

 

Why ? (rethorical question)
Well, I know why you are saying this : because your POV is that one US soldier was more worth than 10 Germans and that it would be sufficient to give him more supplies .The Germans ? What Germans ?

 

Hardly. The fall of Berlin was probably required to end the war. If the wesern allies get three ahead of the Soviets the war ends sooner.

That it was the right decision is arguable but historically probably correct. If the western allies have entered Germany weeks or months earlier then this becomes questionable. Indeed Berllin falling earlier may actually save both US and Soviet soldiers as well as German ones.

To end the war sooner obviously. Of course you can't acknowledge this as it defeats your entire argument.

??? There's a straw man coming out of left field. Care to explain just what I said that even hinted at this much less could be interpreted by any reasonable person as meaning it?

 

THe idea that Berlin could be reached earlier is nonsense. Germany had too many reserves left and the supply difficulties would make France seem like a exercise

 

Yes :the idea that Berlin could be reached earlier by the opening of Antwerp is nonsense .

If the Germans did not give up in september 1944,the war could only be over in may 1945 .

 

The fall of Berlin was not required to end the war :to say that the fall of Berlin was required to end the war is indicating that one is an armchair general .

IF is not an argument

You are saying that the opening of Antwerp would result in more supplies for the front (something which has been proved to be wrong) and that more supplies would result in the Allies being in Berlin ,translation : give the GI more supplies and he will defeat the Germans (because one GI is worth more than 10 Germans) .

Where did I hear this also ?

Ah, I remember : the goose-steppers who said :if in the autumn of 1941 the Ostheer had more supplies we would have conquered Moscow,because one of us was more worth than 10 inferior Soviets .

 

For Eisenhower and Bradley,Berlin was not worth the bones of a GI .And their opinion is more worth than that of Armchair Generals .The Allies got the half of Berlin for free,the Soviets did the job .Why should the Allies do the job and give the half of the city away to the Soviets ?

 

Just had to quote this statement from the greatest of Armchair Admirals.

 

He tries to bribe me with flattery .

 

The Western allies thought that they had a very good chance of doing so historically. Given that they are in Germany weeks or months earlier and with a stronger log stucture behind them your assertion is rather unconvincing.

Hardly. Indeed you have done little to support your position and the historical evidence suggest otherwise.

Utter garbage. They could have given up in October, or Novemeber, or December, or January, or February, or March, or April. At this point the main thing keeping Germany in the war was Hitler. The allies reaching Berlin before May or some other event removing him from the equation was all that was needed to terminate the war.

Indeed but HIstorically it did result in the end of the war so it is logical to conclude that it's fall in a hypothetical would or at least could have the same result. As above the removeal of Hitler from the equation (a consequence historically and a not unreasonable possibility in a hypothetical) the more direct cause. This in no way indicates anyting about "armchair general" tendencies one way or anther.

Indeed and I did not use it as such did I? Or is this another case where your lack of English comprehension is making you look even more foolish?

I am and it most assuredly has not been proven wrong. Indeed just the opposite is clearly the case.

It would really help if you both read and understood the posts you are replying to. Or do you and just "misinterpret" them intentionally? The allies being in a better supply position in late 44 and early 45 could reasonably be expected to have a positive impact on allied offensive operations in early 45. Such impacts could be wide rangeing form earlier initiation, larger forces involved, additonal efforts, and/or superior exploiteation. It says absolutly nothing about the relative quality of GIs and Germans or German soldiers.

I can't help it if your hearing is faulty or you spend your time in unsavory locations.

 

Historically they indeed didn't think it was worth while. However it was clear to them that if they initiated a race for Berlin they could at best beat the Soviets there by a few days. So any impact on the end of the war would be minimal and if there was an "Alpine Redoubt" could actually prolong the war. If the Western allies have entered Germany in force weeks or months earlier the issue needs to be reassesed. Now the potential of Western Forces taking Berlin weeks ahead of the Soviets exists.

Irrelevant we don't know what their opinoins would have been in the proposed hypothetical.

To put an earlier end to the war.


This whole line of "discussion" illustrates how far you can drag things off topic as we are now looking at how the war could have ended in an allied victory sooner rather than mechanisms for Hitler to win.

 

But at least the Germans never needed any trucks...

 

They did not

They did not give up

Yes : you did : in post 437 and post 429:If the allies get ahead of the Soviets, the war ends sooner .

Maybe you will argue that it was your double who wrote this, but that will convince nobody.

 

There were no mechanisms for Hitler to win,the only who are claiming this are the usual suspects leaving in dreamland .