What were Hitler's Biggest Mistakes?

[TheDarkRodent]

Was it his decision to change the Luftwaffe's targets in the Battle of Britain from the coastal radar installations and R.A.F. bases to civilian population centers? Or perhaps his decision to abandoned the plans for Operation Sea Lion in favor of Operation Barbarossa? (Of course the failure of the Battle of Britain was an overriding factor on this.) Once Barbarossa was given the green light should he have not delayed so late in the year to await the arrival of newer more modern armored units? Should he have concentrated on securing the Mediterranean shipping lanes to afford Rommel better supply and logistics in the North African theater? Or perhaps it was his overall production approach of favoring "super weapons" rather than mass producing effective mobile equipment for the Wehrmacht?

ITT: We discuss the many strategic blunders and industrial decisions made by Adolph Hitler which helped insure the defeat of the Third Reich and what might have been done differently that could have effected the overall outcome of WWII.

[Combat Womabt]

Russian winter.

[Stinky Poo]

1) Killing the jews. Big mistake. He should have used them as a suicidal military. It would be pretty simple to. Capture Jewish family. Keep the children and women in a concentration camp, but make it livable. Then tell the men that fighting for hitler will give their family benefits and eventually freedom. Basically, it would force all the jews to fight along side the nazis. Thats like an extra million soilders in action.

Hitler also got too full of himself, and tried to do what napoleon could not. Invade russia in the winter. He should have kept russia as an ally until they were much more vulnerable.

IMO those were his 2 biggest mistakes, but I'm sure he made plenty of others.

[Captain Politik]

I think his biggest mistake was underestimating the American Industrial might.

I mean its crazy how one country like germany could have easily defeated the world.

[TheDarkRodent]

I think his biggest mistake was underestimating the American Industrial might.

I mean its crazy how one country like germany could have easily defeated the world.

Wouldn't that have been a more of a mistake on the part of Japan?

[Bakayar]

Stalingrad

[Lucifereus]

how about fuck fascism and hitler and communism does rapes on fascism

[TheDarkRodent]

Stalingrad

Would you care to elaborate?

[FrY]

First off, they started pretty well. When the Germans first invaded, the people thought they were being liberated (tells you a lot about the government at the time) and were treated pretty well. But then they started killing people and things went downhill. Now, Hitler had this grand idea to take over Stalingrad (mostly for its namesake, Stalin). He thought it would be a massive blow to the Russian morale. But instead of basing his military strageties on logic, he did on feelings (he wanted to beat Stalin); which is never a good thing. Unforunately, he didn't anticipate Russian winter (which, luckily for the Russians, came early that year and ironically the same year for Napoleon). So the German army was stuck in Summer gear, rather then the proper Winter gear (which was promised but never came through). AND look at Russia as a whole: It's a huge country (I heard it takes around 8-10 days to just get through Russia straight across). Now, to the other guy above me. Russia isn't known for having the strongest armies ever. Actually, compared to the Germans they were undisclipined, untrained and from all types of backgrounds, and all ages, etc. Hardly sounds like an ideal army. But the Russian people were stubborn and burned everything, so in that way the German army failed. Plus, Russia had an endless supply of men. Hitler was shocked to notice, there was always a fresh supply of men waiting to fight. Hitler basicaly underestimated the Russian army.

So in conclusion, Russia's massive land(s) and brutal winters contributed the fail of Hitler's conquest in Russia.

[Erorr]

*subscribes*

[ArmsMerchant]

In a larger sense, he made no mistakes. He did everything perfectly, in order to go down in history as an avatar of evil, a sort of other side of the coin to people like Jesus, widely regarded (and misunderstood) as the avatar of good.

Again speaking in a larger sense, it is a misnomer to refer to "Holocaust victims." At the Highest Level, there are no villains, no victims. We all co-conspire to create reality, and so-called victims and villains are engaged in a sort of dance, which the vedic sages called "leelah.". In the long run, of course, everything evens out, as we all come from God and return to God in the end.

By "God," I do not refer to the mythical old man on a cloud, but to the universal, sentient, loving creative force, a part of which resides deep in the hearts of us all. Like the Nazz said, "the kingdom of God is within you."

[adhesive tape]

Should have kept France, kept the Balkans, given back the low countries and vied for peace. Built his shit back up using all the resources at his disposal with the newly aqcuired spoils of war and not tried to take Russia during winter. Once everything thaws, he should have made a push for then rebuilding Britain and offered a share of world domination to the US in turn for help. US and Germany would have ruled the world, 'nuff said.

[adhesive tape]

In a larger sense, he made no mistakes. He did everything perfectly, in order to go down in history as an avatar of evil, a sort of other side of the coin to people like Jesus, widely regarded (and misunderstood) as the avatar of good.

Again speaking in a larger sense, it is a misnomer to refer to "Holocaust victims." At the Highest Level, there are no villains, no victims. We all co-conspire to create reality, and so-called victims and villains are engaged in a sort of dance, which the vedic sages called "leelah.". In the long run, of course, everything evens out, as we all come from God and return to God in the end.

By "God," I do not refer to the mythical old man on a cloud, but to the universal, sentient, loving creative force, a part of which resides deep in the hearts of us all. Like the Nazz said, "the kingdom of God is within you."

Why the fuck do you always insist on trying to impress your bullshit on the rest of us? Keep your hocus pocus fanciful fair-land shit in your religion sections or Bat Country where it fucking belongs. You are an annoying, socially retarded and, perhaps, mentally retarded old fuck.

[Cory]

Was it his decision to change the Luftwaffe's targets in the Battle of Britain from the coastal radar installations and R.A.F. bases to civilian population centers? Or perhaps his decision to abandoned the plans for Operation Sea Lion in favor of Operation Barbarossa? (Of course the failure of the Battle of Britain was an overriding factor on this.)

Once Barbarossa was given the green light should he have not delayed so late in the year to await the arrival of newer more modern armored units? Should he have concentrated on securing the Mediterranean shipping lanes to afford Rommel better supply and logistics in the North African theater?

Or perhaps it was his overall production approach of favoring "super weapons" rather than mass producing effective mobile equipment for the Wehrmacht?



1.) The RAF was two weeks from defeat in the summer of 1940. The Germans were hitting the airfields and had the British on the run. A German bomber pilot got lost and dropped bombs on London resulting in a small British retaliation against Berlin. This led Hitler into a rage and he ordered the German attack to concentrate on the population/industrial centers. The RAF was saved.

Had he continued the origional plan, and then used air superiority to drive the Royal Navy from the channel, he might have won.

2.) Remember that the invasion was already majorly delayed because of the Balkan campain to bail-out Italy (also the weather was unfavorable). Invading in the fall is just suicide. The mud alone will stagnate any German advance. Bolsheviks march into Berlin by 1943 if Hitler does this.

Of course, their is the idea of delaying the invasion until Spring 1942, and securing the Med/MidEast until then. This strategy is a double-edged sword.

On the positive end, the European Axis can secure the oil fields of the MidEast and possibly knocking Britan out of the war (I see Churchill having a hard time convincing parliment to continue the war as Rommel is rolling into Basrah). This is only if the operation can be completed well before America enters the war (and they will). Otherwise the Brits might hold on to hope. If succesful, Turkey will likely join the Axis.

On the negitave end, the Soviets will have completed their military and industrial reforms by the Spring of 1942, thus making the USSR a much more formidable power. Also, a key element to the inital sucess of Barbarossa was suprise. By 1942 Stalin will be fully expecting an invasion from Germany, if not readying his own invasion. The only reason Stalin didn't forsee the invasion in 1941 is because he didn't think Hitler would invade before Britan was defeated and risk a two-front war (Stalin had studied Mien Kampf, even underlining portions that applied to Russia). With Britian defeated, this is a moot point.

The Soviets will be ready. It all comes down to weather German arms cand defeat Soviet industry. A stalemate likely ensues somewhere along the "Stalin line".

[adhesive tape]

Damn, I'm on a roll. :D

[Captain Politik]

1.) The RAF was two weeks from defeat in the summer of 1940. The Germans were hitting the airfields and had the British on the run. A German bomber pilot got lost and dropped bombs on London resulting in a small British retaliation against Berlin. This led Hitler into a rage and he ordered the German attack to concentrate on the population/industrial centers. The RAF was saved.

Had he continued the origional plan, and then used air superiority to drive the Royal Navy from the channel, he might have won.

2.) Remember that the invasion was already majorly delayed because of the Balkan campain to bail-out Italy (also the weather was unfavorable). Invading in the fall is just suicide. The mud alone will stagnate any German advance. Bolsheviks march into Berlin by 1943 if Hitler does this.

Of course, their is the idea of delaying the invasion until Spring 1942, and securing the Med/MidEast until then. This strategy is a double-edged sword.

On the positive end, the European Axis can secure the oil fields of the MidEast and possibly knocking Britan out of the war (I see Churchill having a hard time convincing parliment to continue the war as Rommel is rolling into Basrah). This is only if the operation can be completed well before America enters the war (and they will). Otherwise the Brits might hold on to hope. If succesful, Turkey will likely join the Axis.

On the negitave end, the Soviets will have completed their military and industrial reforms by the Spring of 1942, thus making the USSR a much more formidable power. Also, a key element to the inital sucess of Barbarossa was suprise. By 1942 Stalin will be fully expecting an invasion from Germany, if not readying his own invasion. The only reason Stalin didn't forsee the invasion in 1941 is because he didn't think Hitler would invade before Britan was defeated and risk a two-front war (Stalin had studied Mien Kampf, even underlining portions that applied to Russia). With Britian defeated, this is a moot point.

The Soviets will be ready. It all comes down to weather German arms cand defeat Soviet industry. A stalemate likely ensues somewhere along the "Stalin line".


Stalemate for how long? What happens when the german advancements in tech start catching up with the russians?

Give WW2 one front ( russia) and 4 more years and the V-2 would have been nearly perfected.

[Cory]

First off, they started pretty well. When the Germans first invaded, the people thought they were being liberated (tells you a lot about the government at the time) and were treated pretty well. But then they started killing people and things went downhill.

THIS. The Germans could have gone in a liberators and been massivley greeted as such. USSR collapses in 6 weeks.

Now, Hitler had this grand idea to take over Stalingrad (mostly for its namesake, Stalin). He thought it would be a massive blow to the Russian morale. But instead of basing his military strageties on logic, he did on feelings (he wanted to beat Stalin); which is never a good thing. Unforunately, he didn't anticipate Russian winter (which, luckily for the Russians, came early that year and ironically the same year for Napoleon).

Well, to be fair, the real reason Hitler went for Stalingrad was just to protect the flank of 4th Panzer Army moving into the Cascus for the real objective of Fall Blau (the 1942 German southern offensive), the Baku oil fields + gateway to attack the MidEast from another front. It only became a personal battler because it bore Stalins name. But it was by no means the stratigec onjective of the German armies in 1942.



So the German army was stuck in Summer gear, rather then the proper Winter gear (which was promised but never came through). AND look at Russia as a whole: It's a huge country (I heard it takes around 8-10 days to just get through Russia straight across). Now, to the other guy above me. Russia isn't known for having the strongest armies ever. Actually, compared to the Germans they were undisclipined, untrained and from all types of backgrounds, and all ages, etc. Hardly sounds like an ideal army. But the Russian people were stubborn and burned everything, so in that way the German army failed. Plus, Russia had an endless supply of men. Hitler was shocked to notice, there was always a fresh supply of men waiting to fight. Hitler basicaly underestimated the Russian army.

So in conclusion, Russia's massive land(s) and brutal winters contributed the fail of Hitler's conquest in Russia.

Pretty much.

[ArmsMerchant]

Why the fuck do you always insist on trying to impress your bullshit on the rest of us? Keep your hocus pocus fanciful fair-land shit in your religion sections or Bat Country where it fucking belongs. You are an annoying, socially retarded and, perhaps, mentally retarded old fuck.

because I have taken the vow of the boddhisattva. Some appreciate my efforts, some don't.

[hellspawn]

1) Should have kept his alliance with Russia.

2) Shouldn't have had the japanese bomb pearl harbor.

His greatest fault was that his ambition far exceeded his talent, had he paced himself we'd all be speaking German.

[Cory]

Stalemate for how long? What happens when the german advancements in tech start catching up with the russians?

Give WW2 one front ( russia) and 4 more years and the V-2 would have been nearly perfected.

Gemran industry just can't compete with Soviet indusrty, especially seeing as they didn't loose all those industrial areas in the invasion (Donets Basin, ect.). Never mind tha massive lend-lease they will get from US/US. Even if they aren't in the war, they will still aid the Russians, it's not in their intrests to allow Germany unchecked mastery of all Europe.

After a long and bitter struggle, the Germans are pushed back into Europe proper and the US/UK enter the war to stop the Reds from taking all of Europe.

The Holocaust is completed. Large gurella wars are waged by the Arab populations as the UK tires to re-establish Western dominance. British Empire collapses sooner. Japan is defeated largley as per origional history, if not sooner.

[Ebola]

I think it is impossible to point out a single or major mistake of Hitler that could have changed the outcome.
As I see it, it was a string of events (or mistakes) leading to ultimate failure.

To mention a few:
Assigning and converting Me-262 to be fighter-bombers rather than leaving them in their design role as what they exelled in, interceptor/fighters. Germany ended up loosing air-superiority and getting bombed around the clock. That might have been the other way around if Hitler saw the Me-262 potential.

Generally not allowing troops to withdraw and regroup even when his top generals recommended it. Many examples esp. on the Eastern Front.

Pushing for and holding Stalingrad in winter just because it had the name of Stalin. Sure it would have had a moral effect on both German and Russian troops in case it fell, but nothing that outweighs the loss of the 800.000 wounded or killed that could be holding much better (and warmer) positions while regrouping and resupplying.

Killing the Jews?? A massive effort. Though as much as the actual labour that could be done by the slaves was done by the slaves, it still cost massive amounts of recources and troops that could have been fighting elsewhere. Also the Jews (no offence to anyone) are known for their skills regarding trade and commerce and for the wealth of a nation I think it would be people you welcommed.

Sending Rommel "away" to North Africa. Even though it was an important and often unregarded front it was waste of Rommel´s skills. But since Hitler didn´t listen much to his generals it might not have made a difference...

Abandonning the nuclear bomb project. Even though Germany was beat by conventional weapons, there should be little doubt that the outcome would have been different if Hitler and co. would have compleated a nuclear weapon. Then we would all be speaking German as our second language and not English :)

Fortifying the entire coastal regions from northern Norway to Spain in heavy concrete bunkers and positions with huge cannons never firing a shot outside of training. This is an 18th century outdated concept of defense. He should have made a much looser defensive network (requiring much less manpower to build and man) and have withdrawn mobile defensive divisions to counter any attacks. Also with air-superiority that might have been gained by the Me-262, England would have been the ones needing costal defence.

In general all of the above show Hitlers extreme will to make something work, even though everyone around him are saying it won´t. Even when troops start dying like flies he stands by his inventions/decisions. It might be seen as total disregard to human life (but most people with power develop that :) ), but I think it is his rather insane dedication to what he set his mind on doing. This might be his one major mistake :)

[SHH]

Hitler's main objective in WW2 was to conquer Russia, so basically his biggest mistake was going to war in the first place.

[Cory]

1) Should have kept his alliance with Russia.

Easier said than done. As for as the German high command (OKW) was concerned, they had until the end of 1942 to defeat Russia, because if they didn't Russia would have build up her industry to near-invincible levels and the Soviets would've invaded Europe. Also, defeating Russia is also defeating England. You see, if Russia is neutrialized, there is no possibility of a second front whatsoever. Hitler believed Russia to be the "degger in the back" which Britian was counting on.


2) Shouldn't have had the japanese bomb pearl harbor.

His greatest fault was that his ambition far exceeded his talent, had he paced himself we'd all be speaking German.

Well, you see, he was furious that the Japenese attacked the USA. He specificaly told them to wait until he had defeated Russia. He declared war on the US anyways because he figure Russia was all but beaten (Army Group Center was at the gates of Moscow right about now).

[T.K. Baha]

Definitely the mustache.

[Rizzo in a box]

He probably shouldn't have gotten so pissed off that a couple of jews didn't like his art work.

[Stinky Poo]

In a larger sense, he made no mistakes. He did everything perfectly, in order to go down in history as an avatar of evil, a sort of other side of the coin to people like Jesus, widely regarded (and misunderstood) as the avatar of good.

Again speaking in a larger sense, it is a misnomer to refer to "Holocaust victims." At the Highest Level, there are no villains, no victims. We all co-conspire to create reality, and so-called victims and villains are engaged in a sort of dance, which the vedic sages called "leelah.". In the long run, of course, everything evens out, as we all come from God and return to God in the end.

By "God," I do not refer to the mythical old man on a cloud, but to the universal, sentient, loving creative force, a part of which resides deep in the hearts of us all. Like the Nazz said, "the kingdom of God is within you."

You're an idiot. Hitler made plenty of mistakes. You clearly know nothing about history (or anything for that matter).

[TheDarkRodent]

In a larger sense, he made no mistakes. He did everything perfectly, in order to go down in history as an avatar of evil, a sort of other side of the coin to people like Jesus, widely regarded (and misunderstood) as the avatar of good.

Again speaking in a larger sense, it is a misnomer to refer to "Holocaust victims." At the Highest Level, there are no villains, no victims. We all co-conspire to create reality, and so-called victims and villains are engaged in a sort of dance, which the vedic sages called "leelah.". In the long run, of course, everything evens out, as we all come from God and return to God in the end.

By "God," I do not refer to the mythical old man on a cloud, but to the universal, sentient, loving creative force, a part of which resides deep in the hearts of us all. Like the Nazz said, "the kingdom of God is within you."

:picard:

1.) The RAF was two weeks from defeat in the summer of 1940. The Germans were hitting the airfields and had the British on the run. A German bomber pilot got lost and dropped bombs on London resulting in a small British retaliation against Berlin. This led Hitler into a rage and he ordered the German attack to concentrate on the population/industrial centers. The RAF was saved.

Had he continued the origional plan, and then used air superiority to drive the Royal Navy from the channel, he might have won.

2.) Remember that the invasion was already majorly delayed because of the Balkan campain to bail-out Italy (also the weather was unfavorable). Invading in the fall is just suicide. The mud alone will stagnate any German advance. Bolsheviks march into Berlin by 1943 if Hitler does this.

Of course, their is the idea of delaying the invasion until Spring 1942, and securing the Med/MidEast until then. This strategy is a double-edged sword.

On the positive end, the European Axis can secure the oil fields of the MidEast and possibly knocking Britan out of the war (I see Churchill having a hard time convincing parliment to continue the war as Rommel is rolling into Basrah). This is only if the operation can be completed well before America enters the war (and they will). Otherwise the Brits might hold on to hope. If succesful, Turkey will likely join the Axis.

On the negitave end, the Soviets will have completed their military and industrial reforms by the Spring of 1942, thus making the USSR a much more formidable power. Also, a key element to the inital sucess of Barbarossa was suprise. By 1942 Stalin will be fully expecting an invasion from Germany, if not readying his own invasion. The only reason Stalin didn't forsee the invasion in 1941 is because he didn't think Hitler would invade before Britan was defeated and risk a two-front war (Stalin had studied Mien Kampf, even underlining portions that applied to Russia). With Britian defeated, this is a moot point.

The Soviets will be ready. It all comes down to weather German arms cand defeat Soviet industry. A stalemate likely ensues somewhere along the "Stalin line".

I am glad I took you off of ignore last week. Thanks for a great post. :thumbsup:

[JustAnotherAsshole]

Wouldn't that have been a more of a mistake on the part of Japan?

Probably.

Anyway, I think Hitler's biggest mistake was in going to war with Russia, and perhaps aligning itself with Japan.

[JustAnotherAsshole]

Wouldn't that have been a more of a mistake on the part of Japan?

Probably.

Anyway, I think Hitler's biggest mistake was in going to war with Russia, and perhaps aligning itself with Japan.

[Erorr]

Probably.

Anyway, I think Hitler's biggest mistake was in going to war with Russia, and perhaps aligning itself with Japan.

Probably.

Anyway, I think Hitler's biggest mistake was in going to war with Russia, and perhaps aligning itself with Japan.

[Rizzo in a box]

Probably.

Anyway, I think Hitler's biggest mistake was in going to war with Russia, and perhaps aligning itself with Japan.

http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/forced_meme_is_forced_trollcat.jpg

[Cory]

I am glad I took you off of ignore last week. Thanks for a great post. :thumbsup:

Thanks for the great thread. :thumbsup:

[Cory]

On thing I've noticed:

A lot of people think invading the USSR was a mistake or a bad idea. Although it led to the eventual German defeat, it didn't have to be that way. There are a number of scenarios that could've led to a German victory in the East (earlier invasion, go in as liberators, ect.), if anyone wants, I can post some of them later.

You see, from the point of view from the OKW, Germany didn't really have much of a choice. The longer they let the Soviets go on building up their nation the more difficult it would be when the time came for the great struggle. Stalin was planning to invade Europe anyways, but his plans were postponed after the stuning German victory in Western Europe in 1940. The plan was for the West/Germany to wear themselfs down in a WWI-esque war then the Soviets could roll in and "liberate" Europe form the "warmongers".

Had Germany gone in earlier in 1941 and as "liberators" to gain the support of the oppresed people (ex: Ukranians) they would've won easily.

[TheDarkRodent]

I would love to hear more on this Cory.

[HippieTrippie]

He fucked with the USSR too early, he needed to take Britain before going after Russia. While the Military might and the Blitzkrieg made the Nazi's a fantastic military, they never had the resources to fight a three front war at the same time, especially one with Russia who can just keep throwing untrained grunts at the lines. Also Rommel. After the Afrika Korps was defeated and the African Theater lost, Rommel should have been moved to the Eastern Front.

On the Japan note, bombing Pearl Harbor wasn't a mistake per se, for Japan to accomplish it's other goals it was necessary. As long as Japan could take the barely guarded Wake Island, the only threat was the US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor. If Japan could remove the Naval launch point there the US wouldn't have any bases in range to prevent Japan from invading Indonesia and taking their rich Oil deposits, because Japanese industry would fail in 15 months when the oil supply went dry because the US and Britain refused to export oil to Japan after its invasion of China. So it was either bomb Pearl Harbor or Japan's industry would collapse.

[Yggdrasil]

It's not like Hitler foolishly decided to saunter off into the Soviet Union, he made that decision out of necessity, the way I see things. His war machine needed feeding; Hitler surely didn't want to continue depending on Stalin for raw materials, and allowing the Russians to strengthen would only make capture of the Caspian oil fields more difficult. Honestly, I think the war was settled at that point. Hitler couldn't strain his resources across two continents and throughout so many different war fronts.

[adhesive tape]

On thing I've noticed:

A lot of people think invading the USSR was a mistake or a bad idea. Although it led to the eventual German defeat, it didn't have to be that way. There are a number of scenarios that could've led to a German victory in the East (earlier invasion, go in as liberators, ect.), if anyone wants, I can post some of them later.

You see, from the point of view from the OKW, Germany didn't really have much of a choice. The longer they let the Soviets go on building up their nation the more difficult it would be when the time came for the great struggle. Stalin was planning to invade Europe anyways, but his plans were postponed after the stuning German victory in Western Europe in 1940. The plan was for the West/Germany to wear themselfs down in a WWI-esque war then the Soviets could roll in and "liberate" Europe form the "warmongers".

Had Germany gone in earlier in 1941 and as "liberators" to gain the support of the oppresed people (ex: Ukranians) they would've won easily.

This is partially addressed in my scenario as Germany would build up a good number of resources by utilizing her newly acquired territories. After the weather had thawed, Germany could have threw everything she had at the Soviets (with the help of America).

[TheDarkRodent]

This is partially addressed in my scenario as Germany would build up a good number of resources by utilizing her newly acquired territories. After the weather had thawed, Germany could have threw everything she had at the Soviets (with the help of America).

With the help of America? You must mean help for the Soviets and not the NAZIS.:confused:

[Cory]

He fucked with the USSR too early, he needed to take Britain before going after Russia. While the Military might and the Blitzkrieg made the Nazi's a fantastic military, they never had the resources to fight a three front war at the same time, especially one with Russia who can just keep throwing untrained grunts at the lines. Also Rommel. After the Afrika Korps was defeated and the African Theater lost, Rommel should have been moved to the Eastern Front.

Well as far as the OKW was concerned, they were only going to fight for real on one front at a time. Take this; from the German POV, the fall of France was the end of the Western front. Britian could never muster the power to liberate Fortress Europe on it's own. At best they could engage Germany in "outlier" actions, which brings us to North Africa.

The Germans never really devoted a full "theaters worth" of forces to North Africa. They only sent one Panzer division and a MotInf division to constitute the "Afrika Korps", the rest were Italian units. Rommel said that with 4 panzer divisions he could overrun the entire Middle East, and he was right. You see, at first the Afrika Korps was just a expeditionary force sent to Libya to preven Italy from losing it because of their ill-fated offensive into Egypt in 1940 with 250,000 men. They were utterly routed by 21,00 British troops due to the fact that the Brits forces were motorized and the Itialians not so much.

However, Rommel by his sheer genius, managed to use his tiny force to rout the English all they way back from near Tripoli to El-Alimen. If Hitler had given Rommel his divisions he would've taken the MidEast to Basrah/Kuwait, and the British public (if America had yet to enter the conflict) would likley demand and end to a seemingly unwinable war, sapping the Empire to it's very last. However, Hitler (understandably) thought he needed the divisions for the invasion of Russia.

Also: I've read poster claiming that Rommel would've been better used on the Eastern front. I beg to differ. I would say that the North African theatre was auctually almost perfectly suited to Rommel. You see, Rommel was best commanding smaller groupings of forces, he was very experinced at this with his exellent preformance in France 1940 where he led the 7th Panzer Divison to the channel. Also, he liked to get very "in the mud" with his troops. He can not get to know his forces as well in larger formations and also would not really be able to "lead from the front" as he liked to do. He was also well-versed in Infiltration-Assault tactis from his experince in the Forst World War in a Mountian Infantry division.

However, for the East you have such military genius as Eric Von Mainstien(father of the plan to encircle the allied forces in Belgium in 1940), Hienz Guderian (father of blitzkrieg doctrine, he devloped it alongside Soviet officers in Ukraine in the 1920's under a deal the Bolsheviks made with the Wiermar Republic), Von Bock, Von Runstead, and many others. These men were more experinced and better suited to leading large Armies and large scale battles (Kiev, 1941 for example).

Hitler would only send a decent amount of forces after Operation Torch and even then he was just sending them to certian decimation in the "Tunisia Cauldron" in early 1943. Even then Rommel managed to knock the "green" Americans back a few with his last ditch counter-attack a Kassirine Pass. Hitler had "missed the bus" in North Africa.

So as far as they were concerned there was only really the Eastern front until the summer of 1943 with the Operation Husky (invasion of Italy).




On the Japan note, bombing Pearl Harbor wasn't a mistake per se, for Japan to accomplish it's other goals it was necessary. As long as Japan could take the barely guarded Wake Island, the only threat was the US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor. If Japan could remove the Naval launch point there the US wouldn't have any bases in range to prevent Japan from invading Indonesia and taking their rich Oil deposits, because Japanese industry would fail in 15 months when the oil supply went dry because the US and Britain refused to export oil to Japan after its invasion of China. So it was either bomb Pearl Harbor or Japan's industry would collapse.

Pretty much, the goal was to make the USA sue for a white peace after the devestating loss in the suprise attack. Japan was really backed into a corner and lashed out, so to speak.

Japan had no chance at all of defeating the Western Allies (or the Soviets for tha matter). The sheer industrial capacity of the United States alone would crush them eventually. Take this: By late 1944, the American fleet in the Pacific alone was more powerfull than all the other navies on earth put together.

Japan can do some damage and hold on for a while, but they were ultimatley doomed.

[Cory]

With the help of America? You must mean help for the Soviets and not the NAZIS.:confused:

I think he means to say the Soviets would have the aid of America.

[Rolf]

Hmm, Hitler's biggest mistake was fucking with a post-Winter War Russia before he had dealt with those pesky Britons, Rolf believes.

However, Rolf realizes that Hitler was an absolute idiot and his other big mistake was not allowing intelligent commanders to do more of the leading. Learn from Hitler's mistakes, next potential conqueror.

[Cory]

Hmm, Hitler's biggest mistake was fucking with a post-Winter War Russia before he had dealt with those pesky Britons, Rolf believes.


ell, not to nitpick, but the German command was emboldend by the Russo-Finnish war. It showed that the Soviet amy had been utterly decapitated by the 1937 purges. Hell, even Leon Trotsky from his hideout in Mexico thought it was the begining of the end of Stalin.

Although you are correct, the Winter War enabled the Soviet leadership to see that it (the military) desperatley needed reforms, which they began to be sompleted in the spring of 1942.


However, Rolf realizes that Hitler was an absolute idiot and his other big mistake was not allowing intelligent commanders to do more of the leading. Learn from Hitler's mistakes, next potential conqueror.

I wouldn't say Hitler was an idiot, he was auctually a genius, although his views are rancid. Not just anybody rises up from a Vinnea street bum and conqures all of Europe.

[Eridani]

There's a book by Stephen Fry called Making History if you're interested in this question. Basically about what could have happened if Hitler had waited on persecuting the Jews (kristallnacht) and let the few universities where it was mainly Jewish scientists carry on, they could have developed the atom bomb fairly early and used it to bomb USSR etc.

Obviously only hypothetical and fictional so he makes a few leaps but it's interesting anyway.

I wouldn't say Hitler was an idiot, he was auctually a genius, although his views are rancid. Not just anybody rises up from a Vinnea street bum and conqures all of Europe.

I would say he was a genius as a political leader, public speeches and so on. It could be argued that the conditions in thirties Germany were such that if not him then someone else would have done a similar thing. A military genius he was not though, which was one of his major downfalls - interfering with his more capable generals etc.(probably this has all been discussed though, didn't read the rest of the thread.)

[Cory]

I would say he was a genius as a political leader, public speeches and so on. It could be argued that the conditions in thirties Germany were such that if not him then someone else would have done a similar thing. A military genius he was not though, which was one of his major downfalls - interfering with his more capable generals etc.(probably this has all been discussed though, didn't read the rest of the thread.)

Exactly, he got full of himself after tha fall of France. Even though Manstien made the plan.

[Pacino]

KILLING PPL

[Dumpster Slut]

hitlers biggest mistake was becoming addicted to meth

[DaSkipper]

His mustache. Can you say tacky?

[Pacino]

Being a fucking asshole

[Rolf]

R.O.L.F is programmed to believe many would believe Hitler's biggest mistake to be attacking the Pinko-Communist Union, these many pinko communists are wrong and must accept democracy, for communism is the very definition of failure!

[testerman]

Hmm, Hitler's biggest mistake was fucking with a post-Winter War Russia before he had dealt with those pesky Britons, Rolf believes.

However, Rolf realizes that Hitler was an absolute idiot and his other big mistake was not allowing intelligent commanders to do more of the leading. Learn from Hitler's mistakes, next potential conqueror.

Hitler was a genius, not an idiot. It's easy to second guess, but he should have been more cautious and measured. Opening up wars on all fronts was untenable. He should have gone only east and not west. Also south, and conquered Africa, and dispatched the negro population. Then imagine what we'd have today.

[Eridani]

Hitler was a genius, not an idiot. It's easy to second guess, but he should have been more cautious and measured. Opening up wars on all fronts was untenable. He should have gone only east and not west. Also south, and conquered Africa, and dispatched the negro population. Then imagine what we'd have today.

It's easy to say he shouldn't have attacked Russia, or should have concentrated on Russia etc. Everyone knew that Russia and Germany would eventually go to war, Hitler decided to take the initiative and attack before the USSR was fully mobilised and geared up for war (which would have happened in 2/3 years or something anyway). If he had just attacked Russia then almost certainly France and Britain would have attacked anyway because of the threat a Germany that controlled much of Russia would pose. Africa... he didn't have the troops to spare and the Italians weren't much use, plus the Royal Navy were pretty dominant. For a lot of the large-scale strategic decisions (attacking France and attacking Russia say) he didn't really have much choice.

[testerman]

It's easy to say he shouldn't have attacked Russia, or should have concentrated on Russia etc. Everyone knew that Russia and Germany would eventually go to war, Hitler decided to take the initiative and attack before the USSR was fully mobilised and geared up for war (which would have happened in 2/3 years or something anyway). If he had just attacked Russia then almost certainly France and Britain would have attacked anyway because of the threat a Germany that controlled much of Russia would pose. Africa... he didn't have the troops to spare and the Italians weren't much use, plus the Royal Navy were pretty dominant. For a lot of the large-scale strategic decisions (attacking France and attacking Russia say) he didn't really have much choice.

I don't think France and Britain would have ever attacked Germany. All along they wanted nothing but peace and to be left alone.

[Eridani]

I don't think France and Britain would have ever attacked Germany. All along they wanted nothing but peace and to be left alone.

Well yeah until Germany attacked Poland, which they would have had to do either way if they wanted to attack Russia.

[Cory]

I don't think France and Britain would have ever attacked Germany. All along they wanted nothing but peace and to be left alone.

They would have no chocie but to attack Germany. They can't allow Germany to dominate all of Eastern Europe. It's why they declared war on Germany in ther first place.

[jator]

Hitler gets a lot more credit than I feel he really deserves. He was a good speaker, and could stab people in the back with the best of them, but he was on meth, shit, I'd be a great public speaker if I was on meth and had millions of people all wanting to hear the same things.

He should have listened to his generals, they were a lot smarter than he was, and could have at least allowed the war to last longer had their decisions been consistently taken into consideration.

[Pancake]

Not telling Japan " Don't bomb Pearl Harbor "

[alex chilton]

it's doubtful that japan would have listened to hitler if he told them to stay out of the war. the oil embargo was killing their economy and they really had no other choice than to try and dominate the pacific. but the jap effort was really a lost cause anyway, taking on a far greater industrialized nation. hitler knew this and probably had plans for an american invasion in the back of his mind that would've been put into action had he subdued england and russia.


and besides, america would most definitely have joined the allies with or without pearl harbor by 1943 the latest because of her commitment to great britain and france. isolationism was over in the u.s...they sure as hell had a better reason to get involved than they had in the first world war.

[Lead Oxide]

it's doubtful that japan would have listened to hitler if he told them to stay out of the war. the oil embargo was killing their economy and they really had no other choice than to try and dominate the pacific. but the jap effort was really a lost cause anyway, taking on a far greater industrialized nation. hitler knew this and probably had plans for an american invasion in the back of his mind that would've been put into action had he subdued england and russia.


and besides, america would most definitely have joined the allies with or without pearl harbor by 1943 the latest because of her commitment to great britain and france. isolationism was over in the u.s...they sure as hell had a better reason to get involved than they had in the first world war.

This, once America joined the war Allied manpower was far greater than that of the Axis.

[The Better Version]

Was it his decision to change the Luftwaffe's targets in the Battle of Britain from the coastal radar installations and R.A.F. bases to civilian population centers? Or perhaps his decision to abandoned the plans for Operation Sea Lion in favor of Operation Barbarossa? (Of course the failure of the Battle of Britain was an overriding factor on this.) Once Barbarossa was given the green light should he have not delayed so late in the year to await the arrival of newer more modern armored units? Should he have concentrated on securing the Mediterranean shipping lanes to afford Rommel better supply and logistics in the North African theater? Or perhaps it was his overall production approach of favoring "super weapons" rather than mass producing effective mobile equipment for the Wehrmacht?

ITT: We discuss the many strategic blunders and industrial decisions made by Adolph Hitler which helped insure the defeat of the Third Reich and what might have been done differently that could have effected the overall outcome of WWII.

See, you're getting way too specific. Definitely shows that you know your shit but it makes the big picture look too fuzzy. I think the fundamental mistake Hitler made was when he decided to adopt an expansionist policy at a revolutionary pace. Ultimately, had he kept it within the confines of Germany or at the very least Germany and Poland, none of the other European powers would have reigned down on him. Its true that the war effort allowed him to accomplish the purges with little resistance but, the war itself caused a massive burden for the Country, itself. He should have moved slower.

[crazzyass]

Being a history nerd, especially concerning the 20th century, this thread makes me cum buckets.

[Morb]

Hitler was a genius in some ways, but in way too many others he was nothing but a deeply disturbed lunatic.

It wouldn't have mattered in the end how many tactical mistakes he made in the war, the empire he dreamed of could never be realized, and anything close to it would die within decades (because it was all based upon utter, lunatic bullshit).

Hitler didn't really make any mistakes, a man like that is outside of the concept of "mistakes". The mistakes were made when Germany allowed that man to gain any more power than a high school hall monitor has.

[Iskalla]

Definitely the mustache.

Motherfucker beat me to it.
Maybe Stalin's superior facial hair played a part in the downfall of Germany. He was more chilled out during his speeches 'cos his moustache did the speaking.

[The Better Version]

Hitler was a genius in some ways, but in way too many others he was nothing but a deeply disturbed lunatic.

It wouldn't have mattered in the end how many tactical mistakes he made in the war, the empire he dreamed of could never be realized, and anything close to it would die within decades (because it was all based upon utter, lunatic bullshit).

Hitler didn't really make any mistakes, a man like that is outside of the concept of "mistakes". The mistakes were made when Germany allowed that man to gain any more power than a high school hall monitor has.

Well said. He was an idealist and a man like that should be behind a computer, writing up crazy stories, not behind a desk, running a country.

[Schwipe]

Failure to kill every Jew. Kinda feel sorry for him, he was pretty close, just sayin'

[007GoldenShower]

Not killing more jews

[THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT]

Not conquering britain is definately up there. With them gone he couldv eliminated threat from the atlantic. Furthermore, knocking britain out might'v made the US think twice about entering.

[Cory]

Not conquering britain is definately up there. With them gone he couldv eliminated threat from the atlantic. Furthermore, knocking britain out might'v made the US think twice about entering.

Also the USA enters the war instantly if that happens, possible the USSR as well. Although the American people were against the war congress would move against Germany anyways because the USA simply CAN"T allow Germany to conquer England.

[mrparks]

The mustache.

Compare and contrast with Stalin's own lip warmer. It should be clear to even the smallest of minds who the superior man was. For even more laughs, add in Lenin. Pathetic small mustache. Marx had a beard, so he is obviously too extreme for this discussion.

[Jeff Gatherer]

allowing dozens of Youtube parodies

[BitterConflict]

Hitler's biggest mistake was rejecting the blueprints of the early models of the atomic bombs and dismissing it as "Jewish-Science".

[alex chilton]

WTF happened to the third page of this thread?

[THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT]

Also the USA enters the war instantly if that happens, possible the USSR as well. Although the American people were against the war congress would move against Germany anyways because the USA simply CAN"T allow Germany to conquer England.

What gives you that Idea? Source? Why would the US respond any differently to the occupation of England than say, France? Also, what makes you think that would trigger the USSR's involvment?

[Cory]

What gives you that Idea?

Stratigec reality.

Source?

We're talking about alternate history. Do you have any sources that prove that the USA wouldn't respond?

Why would the US respond any differently to the occupation of England than say, France?

Because the USA needs the UK to launch an invasion of mainland Europe. Everyone who mattered knew America was going to join the war eventually after France fell. The USA simply can't sit by and allow the Third Reich to dominate all Europe and the Middle-East.

Also, the occupation of England is much more devestating than the fall of France. For obvious reasons. Regardless of offical "war status", the United States was in legue with the Anglo-French alliance form day 1.

Also, what makes you think that would trigger the USSR's involvment?

Similar reasons. The Soviets knew war was unavoidable with Germany. The MR pact was a ploy to buy time, they were hoping for Spring 1942. If the UK falls, Stalin knows the Germans may attack at any time, and will have no chioce but to respond strongly in some way. Zhukov in reality tried to get Stalin to launch a pre-emptive strike into Europe against Germany, perhaps now with the more dangerous situation Stalin decides to strike while he still can.

[cool_kid23435]

lol, I remember seeing these two guys walking around somewhere, I can't remember where exactly, but I overheard one of them saying ''Yes, hitler made alot of mistakes, but...'' and he had one of those little t-rex arms curled up against his chest, made me lol realising how much of a reject anyone who sympathizes with hitler and nazis is

[rabbitweed]

I would say giving up after his first art school rejection. He should've tried harder.

[THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT]

stuff

If England fell than it would be too late for the US to save it... that's the whole point. If the US was as concerned about Germany as you say, they would've jumped on the war effort from the get go, but no, it took until 41 for them to get involved. The more Germany expands the harder its going to be to knock out. Again, if the 'anglo european' thing really mattered they would've jumped in to help their descendents from the get go. I don't by it.

I think that if Germany had taken England, the only buffer zone between them and the US would be the atlantic. The only problem would be the USSR, but that could have been another story all together.

[testerman]

go read mein kampf and then come back here everyone

[Cory]

If England fell than it would be too late for the US to save it... that's the whole point.

Which is exactly why the USA would be forced to enter if England was invaded.

If the US was as concerned about Germany as you say, they would've jumped on the war effort from the get go, but no, it took until 41 for them to get involved.

Only because of domestic political reasons. If not for political isolationism, the USA would've declared war on Germany in September of 1939.

Again, if the 'anglo european' thing really mattered they would've jumped in to help their descendents from the get go. I don't by it.

It's not about their "descendents" or bloodline. It's about geo-politics. The USA has much to lose if Germany is victorious. The American establishment was always pro-allied.

[TheDarkRodent]

bullstuff...

Which is exactly why the USA would be forced to enter if England was invaded.



Only because of domestic political reasons. If not for political isolationism, the USA would've declared war on Germany in September of 1939.



It's not about their "descendents" or bloodline. It's about geo-politics. The USA has much to lose if Germany is victorious. The American establishment was always pro-allied.

What Cory is saying plus this. America was in the war from the get go with massive economic and logistical support to both England and Russia. Anyone who knows shit knows that it is $$$ that wins wars. Always has been that way...

[THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT]

I didn't think of the economic support, and that's the most important thing in the end.

But if England had been invaded I doubt America could respond in time before the entire country was occupied.

Heres food for thought; is there anyway that Germany could've defeated Russia?

[TheDarkRodent]

I didn't think of the economic support, and that's the most important thing in the end.

But if England had been invaded I doubt America could respond in time before the entire country was occupied.

Heres food for thought; is there anyway that Germany could've defeated Russia?

You may be right about the response time but I somehow think the production capacity of the US would have risen to the challenge if the Battle of Britain had gone the other way in the summer/autumn of 1940. In other words if the R.A.F. had been decimated by the Luftwaffe the U.S. would have known that a channel crossing invasion was imminent. In that event the it would have been a contest between the U.S. Navy and the Kriegsmarine. I don't think there can be any doubt about the outcome of that match up as other than the German U-boats and the limited action of the ill fated Bismarck the Kriegsmarine was a largely ineffective force in terms of the overall strategic outcome.

As to weather there was anyway for Germany to have defeated Russia it again comes down to two things in my mind. First the massive economic and logistical support that the U.S. provided to Russia even before the Launch of Operation Barbarossa. It was well known by those in power that The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact or Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union was nothing more than a stalling tactic on the part of both Hitler and Stalin. Hitler was buying time for expansion to the west and Stalin was buying time to consolidate the Soviet military which was hardly prepared to stand against the might of Germany at that time.

Perhaps if Hitler had been able to work with Poland on a peaceful solution to the Danzig issue and thereby avoid declarations of war by France and England he may have had the resources and logistical mechanisms required for such a massive expansion as the subjugation of Russia. One of the largest issue faced by the Wehrmacht on the eastern front was not Soviet resistance but rather the logistics of supplying so many men over such a vast distance. Had he not had so many resources tied up in occupying France and fighting the British in North Africa he could have easily defeated Russia after a peaceful resolution of the Danzig problem if he would have struck against Russia in the spring of 1940. That would have been a full 15 to 16 months sooner than Barbarossa. Even as late as June of 1941 the Soviet forces were ill prepared for the might of the German forces as witnessed by the total destruction of the Soviet air forces during the first 60 days of that campaign.

Had it not been for the late launch of that offensive the Soviet winter may not have played such a vital role in buying Russia the time she needed to survive the Nazi onslaught. Had Germany been able to bring it's full might of 1940 against the Soviets without the drain of two other fronts I can not see how the Soviets could have prevailed even with economic aid from the west. Also lets not forget the failure of the Anglo-Soviet negotiation of 1939 prior to the September invasion of Poland.

But since Poland was emboldened by the assurance of both France and England that they would defend her in the event of German aggression I can't see how Hitler could have convinced the Poles to give up the Danzig territory without a fight. That would have been the key, from my point of view, to a successful German conquest of Soviet Russia.

[Cory]

What TDR said.

Also, a "second Munich" with Poland would enable Germany to jutify it's agression against Soviet Russia as part of an anti-Bolshevik crusade. The Western Allies would be more than happy to allow Germany and the USSR to fight each other.

The speed of the German victory would come as a great suprise however...


There's a saying I like to use (maybe even coined): It's not so much the Allies won WWII, as much as the Germans lost it. (Japan was fucked)

[Cito]

he didn't move fast enough, they toyed around with prisoners instead of just finishing the job they wasted too much time

[TheDarkRodent]

What TDR said.

Also, a "second Munich" with Poland would enable Germany to jutify it's agression against Soviet Russia as part of an anti-Bolshevik crusade. The Western Allies would be more than happy to allow Germany and the USSR to fight each other.

The speed of the German victory would come as a great suprise however...


There's a saying I like to use (maybe even coined): It's not so much the Allies won WWII, as much as the Germans lost it. (Japan was fucked)

Yeah that is an aspect I overlooked, had England and France not been at war with Germany, neither they nor the the U.S. would not have been anywhere near as sympathetic with the Soviets as they historically were.

[Agent 008]

Perhaps if Hitler had been able to work with Poland on a peaceful solution to the Danzig issue and thereby avoid declarations of war by France and England he may have had the resources and logistical mechanisms required for such a massive expansion as the subjugation of Russia. One of the largest issue faced by the Wehrmacht on the eastern front was not Soviet resistance but rather the logistics of supplying so many men over such a vast distance. Had he not had so many resources tied up in occupying France and fighting the British in North Africa he could have easily defeated Russia after a peaceful resolution of the Danzig problem if he would have struck against Russia in the spring of 1940. That would have been a full 15 to 16 months sooner than Barbarossa. Even as late as June of 1941 the Soviet forces were ill prepared for the might of the German forces as witnessed by the total destruction of the Soviet air forces during the first 60 days of that campaign.

Because the Red Army was preparing for an offensive campaign, not a defensive one.

Also, Hitler completely misread the Finnish campaign of the Soviets. He thought they were weak. But to achieve what the Soviets had achieved there in the severe conditions (that winter was mighty cold, which gave a massive advantage to the defending Finnish) they had to be pretty strong.

They weren't technologically behind either - they had a heavy tank that could literally crush the tanks that germans had and that was virtually indestructable as far as the german tanks at the time were concerned.

The sole reason why the Soviets were losing so badly in the first months is because, as I said, they were not expecting to be on the defensive.

Edit: You may find the books by this guy interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov

[Cory]

Because the Red Army was preparing for an offensive campaign, not a defensive one.

Also, Hitler completely misread the Finnish campaign of the Soviets. He thought they were weak. But to achieve what the Soviets had achieved there in the severe conditions (that winter was mighty cold, which gave a massive advantage to the defending Finnish) they had to be pretty strong.

They weren't technologically behind either - they had a heavy tank that could literally crush the tanks that germans had and that was virtually indestructable as far as the german tanks at the time were concerned.

The sole reason why the Soviets were losing so badly in the first months is because, as I said, they were not expecting to be on the defensive.

Edit: You may find the books by this guy interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov

Yep. Many people don't realize that the Soviets were preparing their own offensive into Europe.

As for their armour, a German officer even once commented (paraphrase) "They have superior tanks, but they do not use them properly".

If not for the purges the Red Army would've done much better, their offensive positions didn't help, but they were by no means the only reason the Red Army sucked.

[TheDarkRodent]

Considering that more than half of the Soviet officers were killed just 5 years before Barbarossa....

[Cory]

Yeah that is an aspect I overlooked, had England and France not been at war with Germany, neither they nor the the U.S. would not have been anywhere near as sympathetic with the Soviets as they historically were.

The Western Powers and the USSR were probably the perfect textbook example of an Alliance Of Necessity.

The speed by which the Germans overrun the Soviets in this scenario however might prompt the Anglo-French into action though. What action, I cannot be certian.

Also Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, and possibly Rump Poland (from our "second munich", with Germany reciving Danzing and the Corridor) will join Germany on this "crusade". Maybe even Turkey could be coaxed into the coalition with promises of land gains in the Mtns.

[Agent 008]

If not for the purges the Red Army would've done much better, their offensive positions didn't help, but they were by no means the only reason the Red Army sucked.

Oh yeah, for sure.

There are also big questions about what the morale of the army was really like at the time.

[TheDarkRodent]

Oh yeah, for sure.

There are also big questions about what the morale of the army was really like at the time.

The red army's morale was bolstered at gun point.

[Cory]

One thing about this many people don't know is that the peoples of the USSR at first welcomed the invading Germans as liberators. Many even formed anti-communist militias to fight alongside the Axis armies.

That changed when the Einstanzgruppen (sp?) came in and began their work. People didn't really mind them shooting Party Officals or Commasars, but the terror inflicted on the Slavic people in general drove them back into Soviet arms. Also the Red Army surrendered in droves at first until they realized they were going to be badly mistreated, to say the least.

The Germans missed a mammoth chance here. Had they gone in as 'liberators' they could've rallied the Soviet people against Stalin (hell, in the Summer of 1941 Staufenberg envisioned a anti-bolshevik army being formed from Russian POW's to liberate Russia from Stalin's tyranny after the anti-Nazi plotters freed their country from Hitler, forming an alliance of social-democracies) and the USSR would collapse before the snow falls. Not to mention a huge PR coup for Germany.

[Tetcht Seckum]

I know that this is late in the thread, but has anyone here read either Sniper on the Eastern Front, or The Forgotten Soldier? Both are pretty awesome, totally epic books that are an eyewitness from the Whermacht forces on the Eastern Front.

[alex chilton]

Germany could have very easily defeated the USSR, for reasons that Cory stated, and if they had just won the battle of stalingrad, which was very much within their reach, the russians would've been all but defeated. Hitler stalled on sending reinforcements which cost him badly... Had the germans launched their offensive a few months earlier, there's no russian winter they have to deal with, etc etc. There's other reasons previously stated. The point is Germany had the capability to defeat the Russians rather quickly, and indeed came quite close to doing that.


There was no avoiding war with the west, though, and the anglo-americans would've been a much more formidable opponent had it come down to just Germany vs. England and the U.S. There's no denying the impact that america troops had on the end result. But with the eastern front gone, germany probably would have been able to handle both forces. They could have secured the mainland easily, even if the allies went along with their d-day plans without russia in the war. Conquering England would be a different story with american naval forces in the channel. I suppose a stalemate would be the end result, assuming Hitler is content with conquering the entire continental europe. Im sure he would be since he never wanted to fight england in the first place. His main enemies, France and Russia, were now under his control. The allies would have to agree to the cease-fire knowing theyre outmatched and since D-Day wouldve been a failure.

[Firemind]

Not doing what our governments are doing. You make it seem like they're free. Stockholm syndrome will kick in. Then you enslave and kill them.

[Dr rocker]

If anyone here has read Devils Guard (http://shop.ebay.co.uk/items/__devil%27s+guard_W0QQ_dmdZ2?rvr_id=120157731794&crlp=1374746251_228459_228460&UA=WVF%3F&GUID=3f6aa78312a0a0e202510b21ffc9b964&agid=622692451&MT_ID=11&keyword=devil%27s+guard&ff4=228459_228460), whether you consider it truth or fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Guard#Fact_or_Fiction.3F), if the German war machine had concentrated on securing the oil fields in the caucuses and pursue opostion in the area fully as Wagemueller had, as well as not causing the Battle of Britain (as has been said here), also using the tecnique of carne rather than getting drawn into the shit storm that was stalingrad, then they could have pushed to the Urals, no problem.

It was Russia that beat the Germans, hands down. Brits and Yanks on here (and IRL) often argue on who pushed the Germans over - but it was the Russians (and the Russian winter - Napoleon got fucked in the same way) that ate up the hate force and pushed it back.

Sure, we (UK) turned over Africa (lots of italian surrender force) and we did show the Germans a thing or two about desert warfare, but in Europe, the rus just kept on going. Maybe stalin was stupid and saw it as a personal war - rememer WW1 when the rus said fuck it. When the Germans attacked stalingrad, Starlins named city was attacked.

The Russians could have comfortably reteated behind the Urals - they knew they could defend it and they knew the Germans did not at that time have asperations to go over them. They allready had moved a lot of industry behind them.

Hitler was not a general, but believed he was. The rus trolled him into battles like stalingrad.

In the end, he became the greatest anhero of all time.

He did the murder/suicide, but the rus moloved everything.

Hitler was a fucking great leader and could convince many people, but he took affronts to his person to the extreme. This is why he lost.

[Nerd Fangs]

If anyone here has read Devils Guard (http://shop.ebay.co.uk/items/__devil%27s+guard_W0QQ_dmdZ2?rvr_id=120157731794&crlp=1374746251_228459_228460&UA=WVF%3F&GUID=3f6aa78312a0a0e202510b21ffc9b964&agid=622692451&MT_ID=11&keyword=devil%27s+guard&ff4=228459_228460), whether you consider it truth or fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Guard#Fact_or_Fiction.3F), if the German war machine had concentrated on securing the oil fields in the caucuses

This was what I had come to post. The German synthetic fuel industry was massive because they did not have a secure source of oil, based on a process of hydrogenation of coal. To push over the mountains and invade Baku would have been probably the most sure-fire way to win the war.

rGzEs3K66hA

Here's a video depicting Hitler with a chocolate cake depicting Baku (the chocolate sauce depicts oil).

By the end of the war allied forces bombed the shit out of the German synthetic fuel industry, and doing so destroyed most of it's power.

This had huge implications. The German air force couldn't get off the ground. The masses of tanks in the Afrika Korps stopped moving due to lack of gasoline.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Rommel_with_his_aides.jpg/200px-Rommel_with_his_aides.jpg

Erwin Rommel:
"Fuel shortages! It is just enough to make one cry"

Anyway yeah, Japan's defeat pretty much can be blamed on a gasoline shortage as well, and even kamikazes were being flown because besides the massive damage on ships, they only needed half the fuel, because the pilot didn't need to fly back. The entire Japanese campaign was focused on capturing oil-rich islands in what is now Indonesia, but they fell short.

Basically America's might relied heavily on it's oil riches. If Japan perhaps, was less focused on conquering Asia and put pressure on Russia, Germany could have seized more of it with Stalin not focusing all the military on one area.

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

[Cory]

To push over the mountains and invade Baku would have been probably the most sure-fire way to win the war.

I'm not sure the war would be sure-fire won if the Germans took Baku in 1942.

Remember the soonest to fields could really be expected to be taken was probably late Fall of 1942. By this time the Allies will be pushing into Tunisa after having taken Lybia and most of French Noth Africa (Operation Torch). I don't think the better advance by Germany in Russia will have major impact on the campain in North Africa, maybe slow the British advance by putting pressure on the MidEast via Persia.

On top of this, the soonest the fields can begin yeilding is probably 6 or so months after they've been secured. That's about how long it will take to repair the facilites after the Soviets demolish them (scorched earth).

However this does mean that the Soviets are now without signifigant domestic oil production. If the Soviet counteroffensive in the winter of 1942 doesn't yeild, they could be in serious trouble. Without their oil they will have trouble completing the transition to a mechinazed army in 1943.

However, by the time the it's all said and done the Allies will control North Africa. I think it would come down to the Soviet counter-offensive of winter 42.

I think how one way the Germans could counter it is they could have the 6th Army break out of Stalingrad (I don't think the Romanian/Hungarian flanks could hold even with further German succes in the South) and link up with strong elements from Army Group South and form a unified defnsive line. The Soviets will make gains at first and retake Stalingrad but I think if a sound strategy is implemented they fail to achieve a decisive victory.

The Soviets will be in major trouble going into 1943 but the Western Allies will be gearing up for action in the 'Soft Underbelly'.

So pretty much I think it could go either way.

By the end of the war allied forces bombed the shit out of the German synthetic fuel industry, and doing so destroyed most of it's power.

This had huge implications. The German air force couldn't get off the ground. The masses of tanks in the Afrika Korps stopped moving due to lack of gasoline.

Yep. They were pretty much forced to rely on Polesti oilfield in Romania.


Anyway yeah, Japan's defeat pretty much can be blamed on a gasoline shortage as well, and even kamikazes were being flown because besides the massive damage on ships, they only needed half the fuel, because the pilot didn't need to fly back. The entire Japanese campaign was focused on capturing oil-rich islands in what is now Indonesia, but they fell short.

You are spot on oil was the entire reason for the Pacific war in the first place. I don't think Japan really stood a chance though due to it's industrial shotrcomings vs America and the passion of the American people being so rallied agains them (no possibility for White Peace). Had it not been for Pearl Harbour, say if Japan attacked only UK/Dutch and the USA declared war, I think there could be a possibility for a favorable outcome for Japan due to American war-wearyness and the looming threat of the Third Reich.

If Japan perhaps, was less focused on conquering Asia and put pressure on Russia, Germany could have seized more of it with Stalin not focusing all the military on one area.

This is a good alternative I think. The only problem is that the Soviet Army outclasses the Japanese in every field sans infantry. The Battle of Khalkhyn Gol in 1939 is testament to this. Also, due to master spy Richard Sorge in Japan the Sovets would know to expect the invasion, just as they knew Japan was "Going for the Southern Option" in Winter of 1941, enabling Stalin to move his Siberian divisions to participate in the Battle for Moscow/Winter 1941 counteroffensive.

However I think it would be worth it in the long run for Japan to do this. Them "taking the hit" by fighting a pitched battle in Siberia will stop the Soviets from being able to hold Moscow in the Winter of 1941, never mind launch a counter-offensive. The USSR could be knocked out in 1942 with the German offensive in the South twords Baku/Stalingrad. If that offensive is succesful and Japan holds it's own in the East, the USSR will perhaps forge a bitter peace. The Japanese Naval Air Arm could help greatly.

Also, without the Japenses attack against the West, America is not brought into the war so no Operation Torch/landing in North Africa. El Alimein still happens (probably) but the Axis can rally before too long.

[J.P.W]

that moustache, what was he thinking?

[agajadi]

^lol, i know right.

i see a lot of you saying he shouldn't have invaded ussr when he did. but sovyet union and third reich were not allies. BOTH stalin and hitler knew it was only a matter of time before one attacked the other. stalin estimated hitler would wait until he had finished in the west before turning to attack the soviets. hitler saw stalin wasnt prepared quite yet, so he massed his armies and invaded. it was an opportunity that most competent commanders would have exploited. even then, invading the worlds biggest country and one of the top 3 economies is a risky business. but germany had the world best military and also one of the top 3 economies...and if they can defeat soviets it guarantees their supremacy over whole world.

also, shouldve said "fuck it" to land operations in africa, instead just use the captured french and italian navies to police the mediterranean. if he did that the allies wouldnt have been able to maintain any presence in north africa anyway, and never would have been able to invade italy. frees up a shitload of soldiers and equipment, keeps an allie's (italy) industrial output flowing.

and yes, relenting during the battle of britain and operation sea lion was mistake. conquering the uk would have broken the british empire. even the us would have less of a reason to fight hitler. actually theyd want to make peace and resume trade at that point. the post-war powers would be: third reich and red china. red china and third reich would go to war over siberia and central asia. french and british colonies like south africa and nam would be reoccupied by one of the 3 powers after ww2, and these would probably spark wars of their own. united states would be relegated to second-rate status, like brazil and india. big country, but doesnt matter on a global level.

[TheDarkRodent]

^If the Axis had won there would have been no Red China as China would have been an occupied Japanese territory.

[Cory]

^If the Axis had won there would have been no Red China as China would have been an occupied Japanese territory.

Well that depends. If Japan looses but Germany wins we very well could see Red China as the rump Soviet state pours it's resources behind Mao's army.

It could be really intresting and lead to a three way Cold War.

[agajadi]

^If the Axis had won there would have been no Red China as China would have been an occupied Japanese territory.

cory got it. japan would lose, while germany would win. they werent exactly reinforcing each other, you know.

[alex chilton]

But the U.S. would NOT be a second-rate power. Not if they beat japan. That's ludicrous. Especially if the war ended in '42, the U.S. wouldve saved all those resources and the manpower they sent to Europe. Yes, all their investments in england would be lost, but the U.S. would've controlled the entire pacific. Even hitler knew America's strength, that's why he declared war on them--because if he conquered all of europe as he had planned to do, eventually he would have to deal with the U.S.

Obviously Germany would be the dominant world power, but the U.S. wouldnt be far behind at #2. A cold war would probably be the result. But if China and the USSR could somehow put aside their differences the U.S. and Germany would be forced to fight together.

[Cory]

But the U.S. would NOT be a second-rate power. Not if they beat japan. That's ludicrous. Especially if the war ended in '42, the U.S. wouldve saved all those resources and the manpower they sent to Europe. Yes, all their investments in england would be lost, but the U.S. would've controlled the entire pacific. Even hitler knew America's strength, that's why he declared war on them--because if he conquered all of europe as he had planned to do, eventually he would have to deal with the U.S.

I don't think any German victory scenario i've seen has the USA as anything but a first-rate power.

Obviously Germany would be the dominant world power, but the U.S. wouldnt be far behind at #2. A cold war would probably be the result. But if China and the USSR could somehow put aside their differences the U.S. and Germany would be forced to fight together.

I agree that Germany would be dominant, if only because they would control the oil fields of the MidEast. I think that the new "Red Union" (if you will) would be more hell-bent on invading Germany at some point and reclaiming European Russia.

I forsee a Allied/Red Alliance of Convinence against German Europa at some point in the future here. Then the "Second Cold War" begins....

[42069]

Stalingrad

yep, should have kept the pact with Russia until Europe and the U.S. were conquered. If Hitler would have striven for socialism/destruction of capitalism like Stalin, then the Russia and Germany would have been the superpowers in the post WW2, which the Allies would have lost, until Stalin was finished using Hitler.

[Cory]

yep, should have kept the pact with Russia until Europe and the U.S. were conquered. If Hitler would have striven for socialism/destruction of capitalism like Stalin, then the Russia and Germany would have been the superpowers in the post WW2, which the Allies would have lost, until Stalin was finished using Hitler.

Hitler can't "conquer all Europe" without defeating the Sovets. A glance at a map of Europe 1941 will tell you this. The idea of Hitler "securing America" is just beyond words and can't possibly happen. The best bet for Hitler would be to force a white peace upon UK/USA.

The USSR and Nazi Germany can only exist beside each other for a limited time. Remember the Bolshies were planning their own invasion of Nazi Europe sometime in 1942. Also I don't see Hitler turning on his greatest allies (German capitalists) for the sake of an anti-Western crusade when he deplored "Jewish Bolshevism".

[Eridani]

Remember the Bolshies were planning their own invasion of Nazi Europe sometime in 1942.

Yep, Hitler just tried to get the jump on the Soviets before they attacked Germany themselves.

Sorry but people should really read the rest of the thread before posting, seems like it is just going in circles since I remember posting the same arguments being made (on why Hitler had to invade USSR) on this page about 2/3 months ago.

Edit: Not aimed at you Cory, you seem to know what you're talking about at least ;).

[SnowmanJoe]

fuckin with russia

[Cory]

fuckin with russia

We've already been over this ;) .

But seeing as it's so popular, can anyone name an alternative grand strategy for Germany in this time period that involves NEVER going to war with the USSR?

[THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT]

I'de like to hear this as well. It seems to be the common consensus among people who don't really know shit about history or world war 2, who are always more than happy to stupidly declare as they begin describing Germany's downfall that they, 'made the mistake of fucking with Russia'.

[Cory]

I'de like to hear this as well. It seems to be the common consensus among people who don't really know shit about history or world war 2, who are always more than happy to stupidly declare as they begin describing Germany's downfall that they, 'made the mistake of fucking with Russia'.

I know dude that shit gets old. It's like those idiots who think Germany would've won had D-Day failed. :facepalm:

The only way I can think of is (highly implausable) the Soviets join the Axis in the Fall of 1940 (the Soviets auctually approched Hitler with this offer, but demanded Bulgaria and the Bospouros). Even then after the Axis wins WWII Germany will still go to war with the Soviets or vice-versa.

It just can't happen.

[Captain Falcon]

No, you're all wrong, Hitler's biggest mistake was allowing the miracle of dunkirk and putting off a land invasion for aerial battles. Britain of course. Dumbass motherfucker, if he won, we wouldn't have to deal with Kikes.

[Eridani]

putting off a land invasion for aerial battles.

Royal Navy was way too strong to allow the Germans to land the amount of troops that could have made any impact. Germany had like four modern battleships that were holed up in the North sea, when the Bismarck was destroyed in '41 that basically destroyed any chance they had at surface engagements. The UK had at least twice that amount of battleships in the Home Fleet alone, plus aircraft carriers and over 100 cruisers and destroyers. The Germans could have landed troops but then the Home Fleet would sail down from Scapa Flow and they'd be completely cut off with no supply lines. Only way to have a chance at invading Britain was to have complete air superiority - hence the aerial battles.

Edit: You're right about Dunkirk though, a quote from wikipedia:

"Adolf Hitler ordered his generals to halt for three days, giving the Allies time to organise an evacuation and build a defensive line. Despite the Allies' gloomy estimates of the situation, with Britain discussing a conditional surrender to Germany..."

So yeah, pretty big mistake.

[Captain Falcon]

i was kinda trying to troll with the land invasion part >_>

[Figure-8]

He tried to make the world good, by making his view predominant.

He shot himself.

[Cory]

Remember though the reason they didn't make a major push with ground units agains the Dunkirk Caluldron is because they feared a possible French counter-attack into their rear.

Also, the main point of the war in the West was to defeat France. As far as Germany was concerned, the Western Front ended when France fell. And it did if not for American intervention.

[THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT]

Ate's right bro, the nazis lost the war cause Hitler shot himself :(

[Cory]

Ate's right bro, the nazis lost the war cause Hitler shot himself :(

Twas probably a better fate lol.

Can you imagine a Moscow Show Trial of Hitler?

[Nerd Fangs]

Twas probably a better fate lol.

Can you imagine a Moscow Show Trial of Hitler?

that would have been rad.

[Yggdrasil]

Twas probably a better fate lol.

Can you imagine a Moscow Show Trial of Hitler?
Lol :D

Just a quick thought that ran across my mind just now, what do you guys believe would have happened had Hitler offered Great Britain an armistice at the very moment that he had them corralled at Dunkirk, following the fall of France? Would Great Britain have accepted? Would America still have joined the war had Great Britain made its peace with Nazi Germany? Of course, such a peace would have allowed for Hitler's undivided attention towards his campaigns in Russia and the Caucasus. Things might've turned out differently in this historical scenario (ex Stalingrad would have almost undoubtedly fallen and allowed for the capture of the Caucasian oilfields). God knows what Hitler's next move might have been after securing his conquests in Russia.

[靠rent-a-jew輩]

hitlers biggest mistake?

starting a war with Britain.

[alex chilton]

It didn't seem like much of a mistake when London was in flames, did it?

[Nerd Fangs]

hitlers biggest mistake?

starting a war with Britain.

He never intended to start a war with Britain.

[Cory]

Just a quick thought that ran across my mind just now, what do you guys believe would have happened had Hitler offered Great Britain an armistice at the very moment that he had them corralled at Dunkirk, following the fall of France? Would Great Britain have accepted?

The thinking in the German camp was that the UK would make a White Peace after the Fall of France. Because that's what would've happened if France fell in 1914.

There was a peace lobby after the Fall of France however. But they couldn't win out because Britian couldn't really hope to survive as a major power with all of Europe united under Germany. Same reason they wouldn't make peace with Napoleon.

Would America still have joined the war had Great Britain made its peace with Nazi Germany?

Definatley not I say. The logisitcs for America to wage war against Germany just don't exist without the UK as an ally. However, the US and UK would become allies after the peace treaty (in our scenario), out of bare nessity if nothing else.

Of course, such a peace would have allowed for Hitler's undivided attention towards his campaigns in Russia and the Caucasus. Things might've turned out differently in this historical scenario (ex Stalingrad would have almost undoubtedly fallen and allowed for the capture of the Caucasian oilfields).

This is intresting. It will be a sort of double-edged sword because on one hand the Germans will:

A.) Be able to concentrate all of their resources in the East. This includes a much stronger German Air Force due to no Battle of Britian.

B.) Not have to wage the campain in the Balkans. Without the UK (and thus, anybody) at war with Germany Yougoslavia will likley timidly sign a loose cooperation pact with the Axis. (They were going to do this in OTL, but of course the coup ousted Prince Paul and Germany invaded Yougoslavia in "Operation Vengence". I'm assuming that pro-coup factions are not succesful due to the major German victory and their resulting gain in political capital).

Hitler will probably talk Italy down from invading Greece out of concern of British re-entry (one of the flaws in making peace with Britian at this time, but I'll get to that later).

C.) No real risk of any US entry. Vice President Henry Wallace may be willing to go to war "to save the Soviet Union", but the American people sure as hell aren't.

But on the other hand:

A.) The Soviets will know for sure that an attack is coming in 1941. The main reason Stalin didn't think the Germans would attack in 1941 is because he read Mien Kampf and took to heart what Hitler said about two-front wars. (Surley Hitler will liken to finish the Brits before starting the Great Crusade?)

B.) The European Axis will have missed out on a major chance to take the MidEast and it's oil supply. By making peace when they did (in our scenario), they have left the British Empire's holdings intact in the Med. This has the double effect of both:

B1.) Making Britian stronger. The Empire will have suffered a loss of face, but not the high causilties among clonional troops that forced them to promise independence in exchange for their fighting in WWII. The Empire is much stronger for this and will be so for some time to come, barring the unforseen.

B2.) Making Mussolini feel gipped. His Italy will have gained nothing from this peace spare a loss of trade relations with the world outside Europe. However, Germany may not need it's alliance with Italy at this point. Maybe Germany and the UK would fight a "proxy war" with an invasion of Greece with Italy backed by Germany and Greece by the UK? No direct confrontation of course.

Japan will be in an intresting situation. Their economic needs still mandate they do something to get oil. A idea of war with the West just got a lot more difficult without Germany at war with the UK. Not to mention the full might if the United States will be applied against them. If they attack as per OTL the home islands get invaded by the summer of 1944 I say. Perhaps it will be in their best intrest to join Germany against Russia and get oil from the Germans via trade across the Trans-Siberian railroad? (Whatever rump Soviet/Russian state survives will be in no position to interdict these supplies)

I think Germany knocks out the USSR the 1942 campain season, with Moscow falling in 1941 but one last big push nessary to really finish them off. Germany will now have most of European Russia as it's own.

God knows what Hitler's next move might have been after securing his conquests in Russia.

At this point th world will probably settle into a diffrent Cold War with German Europa on one side and the US/UK Western Allies on another, fresh from their victory over Japan (unless they choose the Soviet option, then things could get really intresting...), with what's left of the USSR forming a kind of third-bloc.

[靠rent-a-jew輩]

rommel got pwned by montgomery
lancasters pwned hamburg
bletchley park pwned enigma
the royal navy pwned the U-boats

hitler started on britain and got pwned.

[靠rent-a-jew輩]

basically the war was won with good old fashioned british knowhow.

you start on england you basically start on all the english speaking countries + the peoples previously pwned by those countries. uk, canada, US, australia, new zealand and the british/american empire

it is a lesson that should be noted by all. you dont fuck with anglo saxons.

[Cory]

basically the war was won with good old fashioned british knowhow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

The war could not have been won if any one of the major three Allied nations were not in the war effort.


it is a lesson that should be noted by all. you dont fuck with anglo saxons.

I would auctually say the war was a great loss for the British Empire. It made it inevitable that she would loose her Empire soon. They more or less had to promise that most of them would get independence sometime after the war in exchange for their commitment to the Allied cause. This was made nessary because of the Fall of France.

Also, due to the Aweakening of the American Giant's industry, by 1944 the US Pacific fleet was more powerful then every fleet on earth put together. The USA was now the world's pre-eminent naval power. The USA is in many ways the Successor State to the Britian of old I say.

[Yggdrasil]

You know, Cory, with what you're thinking, I can almost envision the world turning out as it does in Orwell's novel, 1984, with a major land power controlling Europe and Russia and another controlling the Americas and the British Isles. Never mind Eastasia. When I proposed my scenario in which I figured that Britain might make its peace with Nazi Germany I did think of how great a loss that would be for the Axis powers to not capture the Middle-Eastern oil fields held by Britain, but then that would serve as an even larger impetus for Hitler to make his push East. Mussolini would probably have taken objection to this, but then again, was he in any position to oppose Hitler?

It's possible that in this historical scenario Hitler doesn't back Japan when Japan makes its inevitable war with the United States, thus the United States' role in WWII would have been confined to the Pacific Theater, and I would imagine in the end things turn out similarly. Now, as for who develops nuclear weapons first.... who knows, without a two-pronged war effort it's possible that Nazi Germany discovers nuclear weapons first.

... I think we're delving a little too far into the realm of the theoretical here :o

[Cory]

You know, Cory, with what you're thinking, I can almost envision the world turning out as it does in Orwell's novel, 1984, with a major land power controlling Europe and Russia and another controlling the Americas and the British Isles. Never mind Eastasia.

Intresting. I could be like "Europa" instead of "Eurasia" and the Soviets could form the "Eastasia" bloc. (Assuming maybe they pour resources into Mao's China)

When I proposed my scenario in which I figured that Britain might make its peace with Nazi Germany I did think of how great a loss that would be for the Axis powers to not capture the Middle-Eastern oil fields held by Britain, but then that would serve as an even larger impetus for Hitler to make his push East. Mussolini would probably have taken objection to this, but then again, was he in any position to oppose Hitler?[QUOTE=Yggdrasil;2165830]

It's not so much that Mussolini can oppose Hitler as much as it's that he is prone to act rashly and do things on his own, such as the invasion of Greece that Hitler had to bail him out of.

[QUOTE=Yggdrasil;2165830]It's possible that in this historical scenario Hitler doesn't back Japan when Japan makes its inevitable war with the United States, thus the United States' role in WWII would have been confined to the Pacific Theater, and I would imagine in the end things turn out similarly.

Yeah I think it's probable that the USA doesn't go to war with Germany for sure. Although the US will make an alliance with the UK under the guise of fighting Japan but realy a total stratigec partnership. Japan of course definatley goes down as per OTL.

Now, as for who develops nuclear weapons first.... who knows, without a two-pronged war effort it's possible that Nazi Germany discovers nuclear weapons first.

I'd say the United States definatley gets Nukes first. The German desigins were fundemantally flawed and they would be unable to get nukes until the late 40's. The USA I think would devlope nukes around the same time as auctualy history. By this time in our scenario the Germans will have perfected their V2's and be able to retaliate in kind with Nerve Gas.

I think we're delving a little too far into the realm of the theoretical here :o

No harm in it :)

[Lulzar]

Trying to expand too fast. Work on gaining allies in white-dominated countries. Unite many under the guise of racial purification and patriotism. Once enough allies are in place, the rest will follow suit.

Patience is key.

[alex chilton]

He expanded way too fast, you're right, but Hitler had to keep in mind that Stalin was going to attack him eventually, by 1944 the latest. In order to gain the advantage Hitler had to make the first move and by doing so he caught Stalin completely by surprise. The problem with his strategy is that he delved too far into Russia too quickly; hitler figured he could get a surrender from the soviets if he got to a certain point and probably would have gotten a surrender if he had taken stalingrad. Had he taken his time with the campaign i think things would've turned out differently because of the german army's superiority over the red army. But if he was going to do that he would've had to convince the japs not to attack america in order to prevent the two-front war.

[Yggdrasil]

He expanded way too fast, you're right, but Hitler had to keep in mind that Stalin was going to attack him eventually, by 1944 the latest. In order to gain the advantage Hitler had to make the first move and by doing so he caught Stalin completely by surprise. The problem with his strategy is that he delved too far into Russia too quickly; hitler figured he could get a surrender from the soviets if he got to a certain point and probably would have gotten a surrender if he had taken stalingrad. Had he taken his time with the campaign i think things would've turned out differently because of the german army's superiority over the red army. But if he was going to do that he would've had to convince the japs not to attack america in order to prevent the two-front war.

Stalin's goal in capturing Stalingrad wasn't to exact a surrender from the Russians, rather the city was the last major roadblock in his path to capturing the Caucasus oil fields. The Soviets had chosen to make their stand at Stalingrad, and had Hitler captured it not only would he have secured those valuable oil fields, but he would have also cut off the Soviet oil supply and effectively crippled them. It was crucial for the Russians to hang on to Stalingrad, which is pretty much why they hung on til grim death and then some.

[Captain Politik]

I dont think many of you realize that if hitler had won in the east there would be no other country besides germany and no other peoples besides germans... There was plans to starve 30+ million people not including the concentration camps.

Fuck they had plans on how to deal with the FIVE HUNDRED black german's from WW1 breeding...

To think naval power can triumph over air power is ridiculous.

If germany gained air SUPREMACY over britan after fall of france than the Royal Navy stood NO chance.

Aircraft are cheap as fuck to produce and fast as hell to produce. Naval ships are extremely costly and extremely vulnerable to aircrafts.


About nukes. Now if it had simply been "the third reich" that took power not specificly the radical nazis than Id say Germany gets nukes first.

Either way as someone stated Germany had the smartest minds on earth at that time + they would have had the greatest source of resources on earth at that time.


If peace with britan would have been established, and than the east had fallen I am positive an invasion of Britan would have been guaranteed at that point.

I personally believe WW1 and WW2 all stem from the British. They declared war over the invasion of Poland simply because they were afriad of what Germany could become. At the same time they had a monarchy over an enormous empire of which they conquered using despicable tactics.

Similar to WW1 where there was no need for war , but Britans superior politicans were able to surround the very very new germany with enemies even though there was literly no reason for russia and germany to fight in ww1

[Star Wars Fan]

Should have kept France, kept the Balkans, given back the low countries and vied for peace. Built his shit back up using all the resources at his disposal with the newly aqcuired spoils of war and not tried to take Russia during winter.

The Soviet Union was rapidly militarizing knowing war was coming, so waiting would've only make the disparity in strength WORSE & made it easier for the Soviet Union.

[Cory]

Yeah Stalingrad was just a "side-quest" to secure the Northern flank of Army Group South as they drove for Baku.

[Captain Politik]

Yes I think they were afraid. But...



Afraid of a real threat. I don't think it's fair to say it stemmed from either, it takes two to tango.



Thats only because of Englands interference in the first place. Hitler just like Stalin would have eventually died and the Nazis would have become less and less radical. If england didnt give a shit about Eastern Europe than there would have been a grand Germany who was the super power. I really dont think they would go to war unnecessarily just for more land

[Cory]

If england didnt give a shit about Eastern Europe than there would have been a grand Germany who was the super power.

Which is exactly why Britian/France went to war with Germany. Nobody really gave a shit about the evils of Nazism. It's all about power politics.

[alex chilton]

i'm not sure hitler would've invaded england if the east had fallen, 'cos the war would be pretty much over at that point. the british had only so much support from the beginning, and without an eastern front there is no D-Day. simple as that. continental europe is in german hands and no one's going to take it. besides, england got what it wanted the most (securing its oil fields in the mideast), so there'd be no point in continuing the war especially with the waning support of the british people. liberating france would be near impossible and too costly. the only question is if germany agrees to a peace treaty, which i think it would considering hitler never really wanted to fight england in the first place and believed the british to be part of the "superior race". Sure, the two countries had grown to be bitter rivals since the century began, but i think an invasion of england would be too risky, especially with a tired and depleted german force coming back from russia facing both american and english troops.


With peace finally restored in europe, would hitler even bother with america? It being the last real non-aryan threat, if he really wanted to carry out his master plan than i suppose he would, considering americans to all be "niggers and jews", or something like that. i remember my history teachers always tellng us that we'd all be speaking german had the nazis won in europe, but i think an invasion of america would probly be even more difficult than one of england.

[-SpectraL]

He turned right when he should have turned left. An understandable impulse.

[Metaflux]

I'm not an expert on WWII History but I'm pretty sure he sealed his fate when he invaded Russia.

On another note I'm pretty sure he was suffering from Amphetamine Psychosis and his mind was slowly degrading from paranoia and anxiety. Not to support the Nazi regime or the Third Reich but he was doing pretty damn good during the start of the war. Then after a while he got carried away and things went to shit. I really think the Amphetamines affected his state of mind so much he wasn't able to make reasonable decisions anymore as a leader of a nation and army.

I watched a really long documentary about WWII and I couldn't help but be amazed by his raise to power... Just fucking crazy and most of the world (France, USA, Britain, All got involved way to late:lsd:) sat by and watched him do his thing, or allied with him.

[Metaflux]

In a larger sense, he made no mistakes. He did everything perfectly, in order to go down in history as an avatar of evil, a sort of other side of the coin to people like Jesus, widely regarded (and misunderstood) as the avatar of good.

Again speaking in a larger sense, it is a misnomer to refer to "Holocaust victims." At the Highest Level, there are no villains, no victims. We all co-conspire to create reality, and so-called victims and villains are engaged in a sort of dance, which the vedic sages called "leelah.". In the long run, of course, everything evens out, as we all come from God and return to God in the end.

By "God," I do not refer to the mythical old man on a cloud, but to the universal, sentient, loving creative force, a part of which resides deep in the hearts of us all. Like the Nazz said, "the kingdom of God is within you."

Yeeeeah

[Cory]

I'm not an expert on WWII History but I'm pretty sure he sealed his fate when he invaded Russia.

How so?

On another note I'm pretty sure he was suffering from Amphetamine Psychosis and his mind was slowly degrading from paranoia and anxiety. Not to support the Nazi regime or the Third Reich but he was doing pretty damn good during the start of the war. Then after a while he got carried away and things went to shit. I really think the Amphetamines affected his state of mind so much he wasn't able to make reasonable decisions anymore as a leader of a nation and army.

Yeah he pretty much did everything right up until the Fall of 1941.