NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a diclaimer, Hitler was insane and what he did was in no way justified. What follows is just an intellecual study.

Me and a freind frequently discuss the above question, and how this man so royally screwed up. He says the Hitler should have waited until 1942, giving him time to devolop jet fighters and nuclear weapons, and then invaded France and England Simaltaniously. He then should have invaded Russia in early March (key) with fully winterized troops and vehicles. He then would have pushed into Africa and the remainder of Asia, finishing off with Japan. He also believes that he could have pacified the US, thus being able to settle with 3 solid continets.

What do you think?

he should have stuck to landscape drawings.

he should have stuck to landscape drawings.
Second.

Hitler only wanted Europe, he had no machinations on the lands of non whites, he also wanted an alliance with England, and had hoped for peace as late as a month before the war started.

Or hanging wallpaper -- home decorators make tons now.

He should have never broken his aliance with Russia.

I think he should have kept his planes out of England and just went after Russia, while placating England.

No, russia should have just not been attacked, he could defend against russia like it wasn't there, but that winter knocked the shit out of him. Without an eastern front, Normandy would have been a one-sided bloodbath.

He should have left Russia alone, and taken out England while he had the air superiority to spare. With England out of the way, he would have most definitely gotten at least a few English warships. With this, he could have defended Europe on the Western Front by sea from any Canadian and American reinforcements. Once that was firmly in place, then he could have gone after Russia. This was the original plan of his generals, but Hitler was impetuous.

-_- what he shouldve done is actually invaded england instead of sittin on his ass tryin to defend in north africa, and attack in russia, as well as bomb england... it is a very good way to get ure resources tied up... also, when he was on the retreat in europe, he shouldve stopped to man the many defensive lines that were available to him, but noooooooooooooo he had to go out honorably in battle

He should have picked up a goddamn history book and read about Napoleon's failed conquest of Russia. It is much too large and cold to successfully capture without adequate troops and equipment. He could have kept his pact with the Soviets until he had captured Britain and then concentrated all his resources on Russia. His pact with Stalin would have lasted. In fact, when Germany first invaded the USSR, Stalin was completely taken off guard (God knows why). He was so shocked he locked himself away for days alone. Another mistake was not adding an extra roll to the Enigma machine. Even when it was apparent that the Allies had cracked the code, Hitler refused to believe it. Basically, Hitler was a complete idiot when it came to military strategy and the only chance the Germans would have had was if they had overthrown him early in the war.

lol if that had happened, there wouldnt have been a war, but otherwise, yes hitler was a complete and total idiot when it came to warfare

Just a diclaimer, Hitler was insane and what he did was in no way justified. What follows is just an intellecual study.

Me and a freind frequently discuss the above question, and how this man so royally screwed up. He says the Hitler should have waited until 1942, giving him time to devolop jet fighters and nuclear weapons, and then invaded France and England Simaltaniously. He then should have invaded Russia in early March (key) with fully winterized troops and vehicles. He then would have pushed into Africa and the remainder of Asia, finishing off with Japan. He also believes that he could have pacified the US, thus being able to settle with 3 solid continets.

What do you think?

There are several good books on the topic. One is "How Hitler could have won WWII" and another is "Hitler Victorious".

At the same time, E & F would also have been re-arming. Well maybe not Franceas much, they were pretty much warred out, but I digress. That nasty little thing the English Channell was a major obstacle to German ambitions there. Dropping A-bombs would most likely have just turned us against them anyway. As for Russia, it was delayed by having to help the Italians in Greece . It is very likely that Germany would have reached Moscow by winter otherwise and broken the Soviet hub. Had he supported the millions of Russian dissidents instead of terrorizing them, he also would have had effectively unlimited climatized troops to use, instead he turned them against the Germans.

Technical faults

no long range bombers
low tech communications equip in comparison to Allies
German field equipment sucked (very uncomfortable and bulky)

Strategic faults

Malta instead of Cypres
declaring war on the U.S.
Not supplying Africa Corps with a few more divisions
ignoring radar stations in BOB
Dunkirk

There are several good books on the topic. One is "How Hitler could have won WWII" and another is "Hitler Victorious".

At the same time, E & F would also have been re-arming. Well maybe not Franceas much, they were pretty much warred out, but I digress. That nasty little thing the English Channell was a major obstacle to German ambitions there. Dropping A-bombs would most likely have just turned us against them anyway. As for Russia, it was delayed by having to help the Italians in Greece . It is very likely that Germany would have reached Moscow by winter otherwise and broken the Soviet hub. Had he supported the millions of Russian dissidents instead of terrorizing them, he also would have had effectively unlimited climatized troops to use, instead he turned them against the Germans.

Technical faults

no long range bombers
low tech communications equip in comparison to Allies
German field equipment sucked (very uncomfortable and bulky)

Strategic faults

Malta instead of Cypres
declaring war on the U.S.
Not supplying Africa Corps with a few more divisions
ignoring radar stations in BOB

Strategic faults = NOT INVADING ENGLAND WHEN HE HAD THE GODDAMN CHANCE -_-

also, what part of the problem was lack of coordination between the axis powers... if japan had not attacked the us, chances are that we would not have been able to go to war until 43 or 44

anyways i gotta get off so cyall

Hitler was not in his right mind and you are all wrong if you thought he could have won the war. What happened in world war two happened because god wanted it to happen and you should all accept that!

What ol' mustache boy should have done:

1. Don't persecute the Jews-Hello! This is a fairly large population group. Lots of willing efficient labor if treated right. Also possibly another 50,000-100,000 soldiers.

2. Wait a few years longer, say till 1944-Time to build, less time to need to fight against Roosevelt controlled US, Soviets would have only killed off more key officers.

3. Upon beginning war and knocking out France, focus on North Africa- The British lifeline to Australia, India and any other non-named possessions, the Suez canal, could have been cut.

4. More U-Boats-You have no idea how bad this would have been for Britain. The U-Boat service was the poor relation of the German military, yet it offered the Krauts their biggest chance of success against a resolute, well defended Britain, who could fight to the end if invaded, but could be destroyed by Hunger.

5. When invading Russia, invade in March and use winterized vehicles-duh.

6. Nukes-duh

7. Long Range Heavy Bombers- Oddly enough the Germans didn't have any long range heavy bombers, their only attempt was the Eurobomber, but that didn't pan out. Their flying wings towards the end of the war could have fulfilled the role, but they didn't have the production capacity at the end of the war.

8. Take over Switzerland!- Well, not really but I just had to say this, chiefly because it is funny.

Hitler was not in his right mind and you are all wrong if you thought he could have won the war. What happened in world war two happened because god wanted it to happen and you should all accept that!

Ummm, this is a Historical debate, not a religious one.

Strategic faults = NOT INVADING ENGLAND WHEN HE HAD THE GODDAMN CHANCE -_-

Have you actually had a look at the plans for Operation Sealion? - the chance of an invasion of Great Britain being successful was negligible at best.

What ol' mustache boy should have done:

All of these suggestiona re plausible, but useless if you don't indicate what he should have cut back in order to free up the man power and resources to build and field them - otherwise you might as well just say 'have more of everything'. So, more submarines at the cost of less what? Focus on North Africa at the expense of where? Investigate the atomic bomb at the cost of not investigating what?

He should have never broken his aliance with Russia.
It wasn't an alliance. It wasn't even really a non-agression pact (even though that's what it was called). It was a scheme to buy Hitler time and let him take care of things in the right order.

Have you actually had a look at the plans for Operation Sealion? - the chance of an invasion of Great Britain being successful was negligible at best.

Which is why he should have done the one thing that would have made him win:

Ignore the cities, bomb the airfields.

The RAF's infrastructure had almost been destroyed when one bomber mistakenly dropped its bombs on a London suburb. The Brits retaliated by bombing Berlin, and Hitler declared that the military assets of the Brits were less important that bombing their cities. (note to all RP planners: You can't destroy a city without either 1000+ bombers hitting it round the clock, or a nuke) The RAF recovered and was able to take out a large enough number of bombers that the Germans basicly ignored the air war over the U.K. for the rest of the war. Heck, they weren't even doing recon flights by June 6th '44.

What ol' mustache boy should have done:

1. Don't persecute the Jews-Hello! This is a fairly large population group. Lots of willing efficient labor if treated right. Also possibly another 50,000-100,000 soldiers.

2. Wait a few years longer, say till 1944-Time to build, less time to need to fight against Roosevelt controlled US, Soviets would have only killed off more key officers.

3. Upon beginning war and knocking out France, focus on North Africa- The British lifeline to Australia, India and any other non-named possessions, the Suez canal, could have been cut.

4. More U-Boats-You have no idea how bad this would have been for Britain. The U-Boat service was the poor relation of the German military, yet it offered the Krauts their biggest chance of success against a resolute, well defended Britain, who could fight to the end if invaded, but could be destroyed by Hunger.

5. When invading Russia, invade in March and use winterized vehicles-duh.

6. Nukes-duh

7. Long Range Heavy Bombers- Oddly enough the Germans didn't have any long range heavy bombers, their only attempt was the Eurobomber, but that didn't pan out. Their flying wings towards the end of the war could have fulfilled the role, but they didn't have the production capacity at the end of the war.

8. Take over Switzerland!- Well, not really but I just had to say this, chiefly because it is funny.





1. Jews were the perfect scapegoat, which is exactly what the German people wanted. With this in place, they achieved great power in a short amount of time. Someone's gotta take the blame, may as well be someone he personally hated.

2. Waiting a little longer may have worked, but I wouldn't say until 1944. Probably 1940 would have done it. Another year and the Germans would have stayed ahead in the armsrace and would have been nicely grounded as a striking force.

3. Very true, but I think they were more concerned with land routes in the immediate future, Britain was still a bit ways off of being worried about because of the policy of appeasement. Just how things played out.

4. U-boats were nice. Very nice. Especially their wolfpack formation. Though the Allies found out how to fight them, they were still a deadly enemy. I think you are right. More U-boats for everyone!

5. Yeah, dumbass move all around. Should have bunkered down when they saw their supply lines were getting thin. Hitler didn't listen though ... ugh.

6. Nukes ... not even an issue. Though probably would have helped :P

7. Had some kickass fighter planes. They pretty much ruled in dog-fights, though Spitfires and Wildcats were problems. I think Germany preferred the shock-and-awe fighting style all around.

8. Ahhh yes. Chocolate, watches, and cheese. You can't go wrong!

Which is why he should have done the one thing that would have made him win:

Ignore the cities, bomb the airfields.

WHich still leaves the Royal Navy in operation and the German's with a plan to transport their invasion force using barges designed for operation in shallow-draft rivers... imagine the fun when the wash from a frigate gets near one of them, never mind its weaponry.

After taking France Hitler should have stopped and consolidated his position and built a continental fortress and should have left Great Britain alone. France should have been more than enough Lebensraum (Living space) needed by the German people.

Americans are beginning to realize France has been no friend of the United States. After France's latest moves against the US, I personally would have loved to have seen the French squashed by Hitler.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard framed his words perfectly in opining on the current state of France: "When you start to compare [permanent security council members], America is the eagle, China is the tiger, Russia is the bear, and in my view France is the vulture," he said in an interview to ABC Radio. "It circles around and does nothing for itself, waiting for the opportunity to go and pick the benefits of other people's hard work.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

JiangGuo

Americans are beginning to realize France has been no friend of the United States.

War of Independence ring any bells?

What he should have done was dismantle Central Europe piecemeal like he did with Austria and Czechoslovakia. England and France seemed perfectly willing to continue placating him with more territory. Why he outright invaded Poland when he could have just annexed it bit by bit I do not understand.

War of Independence ring any bells?

Yes, but they only did that to weaken England. Again, they are vultures and not worth the air they breathe.

I'm just glad that the Axis powers lost.

Yes, but they only did that to weaken England. Again, they are vultures and not worth the air they breathe.

Nothing to do with the fact that they were both nascent democracies, while England was still very much a monarchy?

Yes, but they only did that to weaken England. Again, they are vultures and not worth the air they breathe.
I'm a vulture not worth the air I breathe? Interesting. I suppose you'd say the same about my grandfather who flew in missions over Korea and Vietnam to defend the rights that you take for granted everyday, eh? Or his father who defended your nation in the first World War? They are most definitely vultures who are not worth the air they breathe, right? Asshole.

Americans are beginning to realize France has been no friend of the United States. After France's latest moves against the US, I personally would have loved to have seen the French squashed by Hitler.


For the love of crap, don't turn this thread into a super american shindig. Just leave it as it is, a debate on world war two and how it could have been different. People are having intellectual fun here.

Nothing to do with the fact that they were both nascent democracies, while England was still very much a monarchy?

Well, France sure does not behave like it used to, even the French are beginning to realize it. See the following link:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030301fareviewessay10345/walter-russell-mead/why-do-they-hate-us-two-books-take-aim-at-french-anti-americanism.html

I'm just glad that the Axis powers lost.

Agreed. I've never cared for the Horst Wessel song.

BY THE FUCKING WAY: Germany did the same thing to France as Germany did to all surrounding nations. Germany was a massive land force. No one could have stopped them. I don't care if it was the United States of America. Germany would've rolled them over.

I'm a vulture not worth the air I breathe? Interesting. I suppose you'd say the same about my grandfather who flew in missions over Korea and Vietnam to defend the rights that you take for granted everyday, eh? Or his father who defended your nation in the first World War? They are most definitely vultures who are not worth the air they breathe, right? Asshole.

More American blood was spilled in French trenches during WWI and during the Normandy Invasion than all the French blood spilled for Americans during our short history.

How many times did Germany invade the US? When has the US ever been neighbor to a serious land power like Germany? Never. Don't you see the point I'm making?

BY THE WAY: I'm assuming the you just called my grandfather and great-grandfather, both French-Americans who defended this country, vultures who are not worth the air they breathe.

BY THE FUCKING WAY: Germany did the same thing to France as Germany did to all surrounding nations. Germany was a massive land force. No one could have stopped them. I don't care if it was the United States of America. Germany would've rolled them over.

and yet someone did.

and yet someone did.
After the fact. No country could have stopped the initial wave.

I mean, worn out, defeated French troops and worn out German troops...much isn't going to change...

but when you pit fresh American troops against worn out German troops, it's kind of lopsided.

and yet someone did.
Correct. The USSR did. With mass loss of life.

For the love of crap, don't turn this thread into a super american shindig. Just leave it as it is, a debate on world war two and how it could have been different. People are having intellectual fun here.

You are right. My original point is that Hitler should have stopped with France, fortified Europe, and left Great Britain alone which would have been an opportune time for him to sign a cease-fire or peace treaty with the British.

So there was this thread once, where people spoke of alternate outcomes of the second world war. What if Germany won? What if everyone in Europe became a Nazi? What if Hitler was a good military leader? Ahhh what a good thread that was. So good, so nice, full of varying views, ideas, and thoughts of intellect. I'm going to miss you thread. We had some good times ...

More American blood was spilled in French trenches during WWI and during the Normandy Invasion than all the French blood spilled for Americans during our short history.

Psst hey buddy.

Body counts don't matter. If France hadn't have stepped in, gave us recognition, and then made noises that they would start fighting England, we would not have happened.

We did a number on them as well. Kind of promised them B-29 support at Dien Bien Phu and it didn't happen.

The French don't hate us. The D-Day vets are treated with a great deal of respect when they are over there.

In fact one mentioned the Parisians treated him well! :eek: They don't even treat their own contrymen well.

Finally, just because France didn't come running for Iraq. France was there for GW1.

Only a bully expects his friends to do whatever he wants whenever he wants.

You are right. My original point is that Hitler should have stopped with France, fortified Europe, and left Great Britain alone which would have been an opportune time for him to sign a cease-fire or peace treaty with the British.

Remember Rudolph Hess? England wouldn't agree because they knew very well that they would have fortified and set up to attack.

How many times did Germany invade the US? When has the US ever been neighbor to a serious land power like Germany? Never. Don't you see the point I'm making?

BY THE WAY: I'm assuming the you just called my grandfather and great-grandfather, both French-Americans who defended this country, vultures who are not worth the air they breathe.

I am sure their service was honorable and brave. For that I am grateful. They are not of the same ilk as the current French regime. You see under their own reasoning, we should have not attacked Iraq because Iraq did not attack us first. Well, other than trans-atlantic shipping (aiding parties at war by the way), Hitler did not attack the United States, therefore by French reasoning we should not have attacked Germany. I am just trying to point out their utter hypocrasy.

You are right. My original point is that Hitler should have stopped with France, fortified Europe, and left Great Britain alone which would have been an opportune time for him to sign a cease-fire or peace treaty with the British.

Possibly. The British were still full of piss and vinegar though. Crushing them at Dunkirk would have lessened the fighting spirit however. Seeing the results of previous treaties w/ Hitler and the Channel, They most likely would have continued to fight/resist.

How many times did Germany invade the US? When has the US ever been neighbor to a serious land power like Germany? Never. Don't you see the point I'm making?

BY THE WAY: I'm assuming the you just called my grandfather and great-grandfather, both French-Americans who defended this country, vultures who are not worth the air they breathe.

Psst hey buddy. Remember 1812?

England did a pretty good number on the US. Seemed to recall Washington getting torched. ;)

I am sure their service was honorable and brave. For that I am grateful. They are not of the same ilk as the current French regime. You see under their own reasoning, we should have not attacked Iraq because Iraq did not attack us first. Well, other than trans-atlantic shipping (aiding parties at war by the way), Hitler did not attack the United States, therefore by French reasoning we should not have attacked Germany. I am just trying to point out their utter hypocrasy.
Japan attacked the US.

The US declared war on Japan.

Due to the Axis alliance, Germany declared war on the United States.

Get your history straight.

Well, other than trans-atlantic shipping (aiding parties at war by the way), Hitler did not attack the United States, therefore by French reasoning we should not have attacked Germany. I am just trying to point out their utter hypocrasy.

Not true. Germany declared war on the US before we ever engaged in outright warfare with Germany. We attacked Germany because they declared war on us. If Iraq made a formal declaration of war against France, I imagine France would attack Iraq.

Psst hey buddy. Remember 1812?

England did a pretty good number on the US. Seemed to recall Washington getting torched. ;)
The French helped out with 1812, did they not? Additionally...defending when seperated by an ocean is massively different from defending when seperated by land so of course the body count is different.

Nothing to do with the fact that they were both nascent democracies, while England was still very much a monarchy?

Honestly, so what if the French helped the American colonists out of self-interest? The end result was the same. Besides, the Americans (alongside the British, Dutch, Canadians, Aussies, etc.) liberated France out of self-interest as well - they were fighting this little thing called a "total war."

What I don't understand about Hitler's strategy was why he didn't try to take out Moscow. The Germans get Moscow, they get the infrastructure of the Soviet Union, and with any luck, they can take the Soviets out of the war by creating chaos. You know, learn a lesson from World War I.

It was the Germans who sent Vladimir Lenin back to Russia "to cause trouble" or whatever reason they had. The end result was the Bolshevik Revolution, effectively taking the Russians out of the war. If the Germans knock out Moscow, they leave the Soviets in chaos, the other SSRs take advantage and break off from the Soviet Union, and Russia likely has to exit the war, even if Germany doesn't take them over. Russia sues for peace, tries to pick up the pieces, and Hitler can concentrate on the West. The Allies likely would have won, but they would have had to work a hell of a lot harder for it, and it may have cost Roosevelt and Churchill their jobs (Roosevelt while he was alive, anyway...after all, what of Thomas Dewey beats him in 1944?)

First. Agreed. The only reason the USA was able to do what it did was because it wasn't being bombed. Or attacked. It had a practically free building area and factories that could run at full production all the time. Nor did it have to waste money on AA guns, and such things as taht to protect its cities.

I hate to burst all your bubbles, but there is one problem with you're delay idea that doesn't pan out.

By the time the USSR was invaded by Hitler it's factories and technology was beginning to be rapidly built. Tank production was up, and they had more resources than all of Germany's Conquests. You tell me that given a few more years (So that Hitler presumably would have seen the construction of the Jet Fighter and other technologies) Hitler would have won. This is a lie.

Why? Because Stalin was in the process of indeed gearing his nation up as a war machine. He wasn't a dumbarse. He had just expected Hitler's invasion later (As you all suggested). He expected to have time to build up his nation without worrying about bombing. Given even one to two more years of No-War and no Land, Resource or Factory loss, and WW2 Era USSR would have been outproducing the German War Machine. Not to mention they did have better Tanks (T-34) than the German Panzer's and Tiger's.

In otherwords, after about 1941-42ish Hitler was practically fricked. His invasion of the USSR really happened at the only time it could have. If he had attacked earlier, he wouldn't have stood a chance due to lack of man power to capitalize on his surprise, if he had waited, the Soviets would have had more tanks, and men to beat him back with.

Logically, perhaps he should have focused more in the west Earlier on. The invasion of Poland was indeed a strong point. However due to Logistics and such, having to move his forces from Poland to the France border wasted Precious time. Althoguh Overrun quickly, Poland did suck up enough of his forces (Just having had extra re-allocated to themselves) To make him be forced to Wait.
Following this, breaking the Belgium peace was probably his greatest downfall.

Although unlikely, he possibly could have broken through the Maginot Line. Had he done this, imagine the reprecussions? This was the Impervious line of France. The strongest Fortifications in Europe. Had he broken this, then most likely France would have given up, morale broken. (This WAS Their strongest defence in all the world Remember that.) England may have seeked a peace treaty. The Belgium Neutrality would have been respected. He would have conquests in France and Germany. As well as Annexed Austria and Che.Slovkia.

Had he given Poland less forces, or prepared more efficient means of Getting forces from A-B though, An invasion of France should have been done faster. First cut them off From England. Then sweep downwards. (Presuming the Historical Invasion, through Belgium) Make Vichy, and thus France is Gone. Perferably fairly quickly.

Then, Immediately begin production of Ships and such for an invasion of England. You want them Defeated. This is still earl(ier) So you have a bit of time before the Due date. Your men can use this time of building to rest, and prepare. Have your bombers annilate as much of Lower England as your fighters can Support. Then do a Reverse D-Day and Land with as many men (After intensive Bombardment and Taking Control of the Channel Through U-boat and Submarine warfare. Along with a Few Capital/Surface Ships) As you can bring across. Secure each end of the Channel and take the Coast. After that, bring your Panzers and such across and settle down to conquer England.

This is I believe the strongest possibility for what he should have done. The main problems are that of English Resistance after Conquest, and the crossing. Using your fighters though en masse should prevent any intrusions by the RAF.

Just as a note. My apologies for spelling mistakes/blindingly obvious mis-statements. It is rather late as I type this, (Excuses excuses =P).

Just as a recent Reply. Again, There is no reason the Soviets would have stopped fighting if the Lost Moscow. Look at France's Nap. He took Moscow, and was still defeated by Russia. Most likely the Government would have moved passed the Caucasses (Spelling?) Mountains and then intiated a defence in the Mountains. This expelling any chance of Further Advancement. The Russian Winter would have finished the Job when It came around.

Honestly, so what if the French helped the American colonists out of self-interest? The end result was the same. Besides, the Americans (alongside the British, Dutch, Canadians, Aussies, etc.) liberated France out of self-interest as well - they were fighting this little thing called a "total war."

And by that same logic, wasn't the US really helping out France in WWI and WWII out of self-interest? So if France doesn't see anything that benefits France in a war with Iraq, how are they obligated to commit troops to Iraq?

The French helped out with 1812, did they not? Additionally...defending when seperated by an ocean is massively different from defending when seperated by land so of course the body count is different.

France did sorta but they were tied up in spain.

Coming accross this ocean is a problem. However, having Canada does make the job easier.

Japan attacked the US.

The US declared war on Japan.

Due to the Axis alliance, Germany declared war on the United States.

Get your history straight.

Of course, they declared war on the US, but geography separated the US from Germany making Japan the greater threat (remember Pearl Harbor????), so why did we go pouring troops into North Africa and Europe. Again I am just trying to point out the hypocrasy of the current French regime.

Of course, they declared war on the US, but geography separated the US from Germany making Japan the greater threat (remember Pearl Harbor????), so why did we go pouring troops into North Africa and Europe. Again I am just trying to point out the hypocrasy of the current French regime.
Uh...it's not hypocritical of the French. Iraq didn't declare war on anyone. Germany did, and we were loosing ships in the Atlantic near England, what was stopping Germany from moving their U-Boats down into the Caribbean? We had to hit them, they were a major war machine. Iraq's best weapon turned out to be an AK47 and RPGs...not mustard gas and nuclear warheads like everyone suspected...and that's not exactly a war machine.

What I don't understand about Hitler's strategy was why he didn't try to take out Moscow. The Germans get Moscow, they get the infrastructure of the Soviet Union, and with any luck, they can take the Soviets out of the war by creating chaos. You know, learn a lesson from World War I.


It would not have mattered. The Russians already planned to loose Moscow. They had relocated production to the Urals.

Napoleon took Moscow and it didn't help him.


It was the Germans who sent Vladimir Lenin back to Russia "to cause trouble" or whatever reason they had. The end result was the Bolshevik Revolution, effectively taking the Russians out of the war.

They wanted to cause problems for the Czar. Can't be too aggresive if you have a revolution on your hands.


If the Germans knock out Moscow, they leave the Soviets in chaos, the other SSRs take advantage and break off from the Soviet Union, and Russia likely has to exit the war, even if Germany doesn't take them over. Russia sues for peace, tries to pick up the pieces, and Hitler can concentrate on the West. The Allies likely would have won, but they would have had to work a hell of a lot harder for it, and it may have cost Roosevelt and Churchill their jobs (Roosevelt while he was alive, anyway...after all, what of Thomas Dewey beats him in 1944?)

Like I said, loosing Moscow would not have made the Russians surrender.

Now maybe Lenningrad might have changed the fighting if they weren't tied up their as long as they were.....

But we can leave that for our Resident Anglo/Russian. HIs Granddad was in the Soviet Artillery......

Ok, how about this. If Hitler's regime were still in power and holding onto France, if he effectively stalemated the war so all parties would sue for peace. Then there would be no UN, no France on the Security Council and the United States would probably be pretty free to invade Iraq without any serious opposition.

Ok, how about this. If Hitler's regime were still in power and holding onto France, if he effectively stalemated the war so all parties would sue for peace. Then there would be no UN, no France on the Security Council and the United States would probably be pretty free to invade Iraq without any serious opposition.
And we'd be in the age of Imperialism still...

(As opposed to the age of modern imperialism...the age we're in now)

First. Agreed. The only reason the USA was able to do what it did was because it wasn't being bombed. Or attacked. It had a practically free building area and factories that could run at full production all the time. Nor did it have to waste money on AA guns, and such things as taht to protect its cities.

I hate to burst all your bubbles, but there is one problem with you're delay idea that doesn't pan out.

By the time the USSR was invaded by Hitler it's factories and technology was beginning to be rapidly built. Tank production was up, and they had more resources than all of Germany's Conquests. You tell me that given a few more years (So that Hitler presumably would have seen the construction of the Jet Fighter and other technologies) Hitler would have won. This is a lie.

Why? Because
Stalin was in the process of indeed gearing his nation up as a war machine. He wasn't a dumbarse. He had just expected Hitler's invasion later (As you all suggested). He expected to have time to build up his nation without worrying about bombing. Given even one to two more years of No-War and no Land, Resource or Factory loss, and WW2 Era USSR would have been outproducing the German War Machine. Not to mention they did have better Tanks (T-34) than the German Panzer's and Tiger's.

In otherwords, after about 1941-42ish Hitler was practically fricked. His invasion of the USSR really happened at the only time it could have. If he had attacked earlier, he wouldn't have stood a chance due to lack of man power to capitalize on his surprise, if he had waited, the Soviets would have had more tanks, and men to beat him back with.

Logically, perhaps he should have focused more in the west Earlier on. The invasion of Poland was indeed a strong point. However due to Logistics and such, having to move his forces from Poland to the France border wasted Precious time. Althoguh Overrun quickly, Poland did suck up enough of his forces (Just having had extra re-allocated to themselves) To make him be forced to Wait.
Following this, breaking the Belgium peace was probably his greatest downfall.

Although unlikely, he possibly could have broken through the Maginot Line. Had he done this, imagine the reprecussions? This was the Impervious line of France. The strongest Fortifications in Europe. Had he broken this, then most likely France would have given up, morale broken. (This WAS Their strongest defence in all the world Remember that.) England may have seeked a peace treaty. The Belgium Neutrality would have been respected. He would have conquests in France and Germany. As well as Annexed Austria and Che.Slovkia.

Had he given Poland less forces, or prepared more efficient means of Getting forces from A-B though, An invasion of France should have been done faster. First cut them off From England. Then sweep downwards. (Presuming the Historical Invasion, through Belgium) Make Vichy, and thus France is Gone. Perferably fairly quickly.

Then, Immediately begin production of Ships and such for an invasion of England. You want them Defeated. This is still earl(ier) So you have a bit of time before the Due date. Your men can use this time of building to rest, and prepare. Have your bombers annilate as much of Lower England as your fighters can Support. Then do a Reverse D-Day and Land with as many men (After intensive Bombardment and Taking Control of the Channel Through U-boat and Submarine warfare. Along with a Few Capital/Surface Ships) As you can bring across. Secure each end of the Channel and take the Coast. After that, bring your Panzers and such across and settle down to conquer England.

This is I believe the strongest possibility for what he should have done. The main problems are that of English Resistance after Conquest, and the crossing. Using your fighters though en masse should prevent any intrusions by the RAF.

Just as a note. My apologies for spelling mistakes/blindingly obvious mis-statements. It is rather late as I type this, (Excuses excuses =P).

Just as a recent Reply. Again, There is no reason the Soviets would have stopped fighting if the Lost Moscow. Look at France's Nap. He took Moscow, and was still defeated by Russia. Most likely the Government would have moved passed the Caucasses (Spelling?) Mountains and then intiated a defence in the Mountains. This expelling any chance of Further Advancement. The Russian Winter would have finished the Job when It came around.

Not bad but..

Operation Barbarossa was delayed due to the fact men and materials were diverted to assist the Italians in Greece. Had that not occured, the Germans would have had several more months to reach Moscow. This was imperative due to the fact that, unlike Tsarist Russia of Napoleon's day, Stalin had completely centralized not only administrative matters,but all shipping. Most rail lines would have been cut thereby reducing Soviet logistics to alost nil. This all hinges on the mistake of not allying Soviet dissidents which would (as I stated previously) given Hitler millions of acclimated troops.
The building of ships takes months, if not years. British defenses were nearly impenetrable even that early in the war plus the RN pummeled the Kreigsmarine.

The T-34 was better than the Panzers 1 through 4 but was no match for a Tiger, Tiger II or a Panther(when they worked).

German bombers did effectively annihilate Lower England, hence the problem. They couldn't reach upper England to take out their production of fighters. That, and not taking out those radars.

Belgium is a non-issue. The French forces capitulated quickly even w/o losing the Line.

To clarify to everyone debating this, the declarations of war went as follows.


Declared by Against When

USA Japan Dec. 8th., 1941
USA Germany, Italy Dec. 11th, 1941
Germany USA Dec. 11th, 1941



Germany and the USA declared war on each other on the same day ... they both knew it was coming.

And we'd be in the age of Imperialism still...

(As opposed to the age of modern imperialism...the age we're in now)

Now imagine instead of the Cold War, a bipolar world, we still had three great powers, USSR, Nazi Germany and the United States, a kind of tri-polar world where the US would be mostly a Pacific Power (after nuking Japan to submission) and a heavily fortified Greater German border against the USSR.

Who would have gotten a hold of the oil in Middle East do you think?

To clarify to everyone debating this, the declarations of war went as follows.


Declared by Against When

USA Japan Dec. 8th., 1941
USA Germany, Italy Dec. 11th, 1941
Germany USA Dec. 11th, 1941



Germany and the USA declared war on each other on the same day ... they both knew it was coming.
Germany did declare first though.

Now imagine instead of the Cold War, a bipolar world, we still had three great powers, USSR, Nazi Germany and the United States, a kind of tri-polar world where the US would be mostly a Pacific Power (after nuking Japan to submission) and a heavily fortified Greater German border against the USSR.

Who would have gotten a hold of the oil in Middle East do you think?
Nazis. There is oil in Russia and they wouldn't have as much of a need for it, and it's not as much of a trip from Berlin to Baghdad as it is from DC.

Not bad but..

Operation Barbarossa was delayed due to the fact men and materials were diverted to assist the Italians in Greece. Had that not occured, the Germans would have had several more months to reach Moscow. This was imperative due to the fact that, unlike Tsarist Russia of Napoleon's day, Stalin had completely centralized not only administrative matters,but all shipping. Most rail lines would have been cut thereby reducing Soviet logistics to alost nil. This all hinges on the mistake of not allying Soviet dissidents which would (as I stated previously) given Hitler millions of acclimated troops.
The building of ships takes months, if not years. British defenses were nearly impenetrable even that early in the war plus the RN pummeled the Kreigsmarine.

The T-34 was better than the Panzers 1 through 4 but was no match for a Tiger, Tiger II or a Panther(when they worked).

German bombers did effectively annihilate Lower England, hence the problem. They couldn't reach upper England to take out their production of fighters. That, and not taking out those radars.

Belgium is a non-issue. The French forces capitulated quickly even w/o losing the Line.

well t34s seemed effective against the tigers and panthers(early models i believe) at kursk. the german heavy tanks were just too slow, heavy and complicated to prevail. they couldn't manuever well enough, sank into the mud, used huge amounts of fuel, used huge amounts of resources to build and were prown to breakdowns.

And by that same logic, wasn't the US really helping out France in WWI and WWII out of self-interest? So if France doesn't see anything that benefits France in a war with Iraq, how are they obligated to commit troops to Iraq?

That's exactly what I was stating. The U.S. and Britain didn't liberate France out of the goodness of their hearts. No nation sends thousands of young men to their deaths to liberate a foreign country if there isn't anything in it for them. In the U.S. and Britain's case, it was in their interests to defeat the Nazis so they wouldn't have to go to war with them constantly or deal with having both the Nazis and Soviets as opposing superpowers.

Whether or not the French helped out the U.S. in the 1780s or what the U.S. did for France in the 1940s, the bottom line is this: France had no conceivable reason to assist with the invasion of Iraq. Did they stand to benefit economically? Probably not. Strategically? Come on. Were they going to get a cut of the oil? Please. Halliburton had their mitts on that from the start.

As for the Soviets preparing to lose Moscow, well, it remains to be seen if a German takeover of Moscow would have unsettled the Soviet Union enough to force it out of the war. If the Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc. decide they can reasonably get the Soviets out of their land, the Soviets will have an internal uprising to deal with as well as German occupation. I don't exactly have a lot of faith in the Soviets' ability to fight off both of those at the same time.

Nazis. There is oil in Russia and they wouldn't have as much of a need for it, and it's not as much of a trip from Berlin to Baghdad as it is from DC.

I do believe this would be correct as Hitler already had sympathizers in Syria, the Trans-Jordan, and other parts of the Middle-East. Hitlers war machine would have needed this oil (as would his ally Italy) as they continued to strengthen and build their European and Mediterranean defences. With Middle-East oil their war machine would be very strong.

I do believe this would be correct as Hitler already had sympathizers in Syria, the Trans-Jordan, and other parts of the Middle-East. Hitlers war machine would have needed this oil (as would his ally Italy) as they continued to strengthen and build their European and Mediterranean defences. With Middle-East oil their war machine would be very strong.
Italy's navy was destroyed when Britain showed Japan how to hurt the US at Pearl Harbor and then Italy changed sides and pretty much dropped completely out of the war before the war was over. Hitler would have taken control of Italy.

well t34s seemed effective against the tigers and panthers(early models i believe) at kursk. the german heavy tanks were just too slow, heavy and complicated to prevail. they couldn't manuever well enough, sank into the mud, used huge amounts of fuel, used huge amounts of resources to build and were prown to breakdowns.

Panthers were medium tanks, very prone to breakdown. Tigers were the heavies and were much more reliable mechanically.

T-34's were good en masse and only at close quarters. Their guns couldn't penetrate the heavier German armor from a distance while the Germans' 88's could thwack a T-34. They rushed them in groups expecting to lose quite a few.

They could always produce more and quickly whereas the Germans couldn't.

Between the U.S and Russia, they outproduced Germany 20 - 1

I do believe this would be correct as Hitler already had sympathizers in Syria, the Trans-Jordan, and other parts of the Middle-East. Hitlers war machine would have needed this oil (as would his ally Italy) as they continued to strengthen and build their European and Mediterranean defences. With Middle-East oil their war machine would be very strong.
the french and british were the colonial powers in the middle east, i'm sure the nazis had many arab nationalist sympathizers. not an attack on the morals of the arabs, just a manifestation of the old adage, an enemy of my enemy is a friend(or at least an ally).

Italy's navy was destroyed when Britain showed Japan how to hurt the US at Pearl Harbor and then Italy changed sides and pretty much dropped completely out of the war before the war was over. Hitler would have taken control of Italy.

Correct. The Vichy French also helped Hitler gain some influence over Syria and the French colonies at that time.

the french and british were the colonial powers in the middle east, i'm sure the nazis had many arab nationalist sympathizers. not an attack on the morals of the arabs, just a manifestation of the old adage, an enemy of my enemy is a friend(or at least an ally).

Excellent! Did you know that the arab nationalist sympathizers were the forerunners of the Syrian and the Iraqi Baath Parties? Saddam Hussein is an ideological heir of Nazism (and former leader of a formerly rogue nation thanks to the coalition) and can be seen as a mere continuation of WWII!

Panthers were medium tanks, very prone to breakdown. Tigers were the heavies and were much more reliable mechanically.

T-34's were good en masse and only at close quarters. Their guns couldn't penetrate the heavier German armor from a distance while the Germans' 88's could thwack a T-34. They rushed them in groups expecting to lose quite a few.

They could always produce more and quickly whereas the Germans couldn't.

Between the U.S and Russia, they outproduced Germany 20 - 1
i always believed the t34s had good armor, but mediocre guns(as opposed to the shermans with poor armor and guns, known as zippos cuz they always lit on the first strike). from what i understand the 88 was probably the best medium cannon of the war, excellent anti tank and anti aircraft applications, in both stationary and mechanized forms.

Excellent! Did you know that the arab nationalist sympathizers were the forerunners of the Syrian and the Iraqi Baath Parties? Saddam Hussein is an ideological heir of Nazism (and former leader of a formerly rogue nation thanks to the coalition) and can be seen as a mere continuation of WWII!
sometimes the difference between a socialistic (arab)nationalist regime and a national socialist one can be awful vague.

Okay, now this post is sort of directed towards the whole groups of posts, but there are a few of you this isn't directed towards, you should know who you are.

Every one of you needs to go and read a history book all over again. I don't have the time to go through every single post on here to correct the inaccuries, faulty theories, etc etc. Read up on Operation Sea Lion, the military preparations of Hitler and his command, military technologies of Germany at the time of the beginning and towards the middle and and end of the War. Read up on the economic situations, battles, etc etc etc.

Sorry for those of you that read this and you didn't have anything wrong, but it was either a simple post like this or I could spend a month going through this whole thing and fixing the entire thread up with the correct facts...

Oi.

Anything I said was wrong?

Curiosity mind you. I don't mind being corrected.

What I know comes from reading and my relatives. One granddad was a Pole. Fought for Poland and then England....

Yea...I don't think I talked about Germany much in great detail...but I'd like to know if I said anything incorrect.

it was probably my post about the various uses for the german 88mm cannon, i admit it, i was talking out my ass.... sorry.

Okay well Hitler DIDN'T do any of this which is why we had the upper hand and why we ultimatly won the war. Yah sure he could of done things to win the war just like any other certain side in a certain war could of done. Just becuase Hitler COULD of done things to win the war.. SO WHAT HE DIDN'T DO THEM!! The USSR COULD of taken America and made it part of the USSR with the right plans and tactical timing etc. Just like America COULD of taken the USSR with the right plans etc. The point is we won the war because Hitler's tactical mistakes and desicions were made that's that.

undefinedi agree with you, hilter was a political genius, he just didn't know timing very well and his arrogance got in the way. i don't think he'd be able to take over japan very easily, if you look at how hard the japanesse fought at midway, they were not going into the quiet night. Then the Russians had germany out numbered, so any land base attact would still be very difficult even if hitler started at the end of march. As for the US...we would have kicked his ass in the end.




Just a diclaimer, Hitler was insane and what he did was in no way justified. What follows is just an intellecual study.

Me and a freind frequently discuss the above question, and how this man so royally screwed up. He says the Hitler should have waited until 1942, giving him time to devolop jet fighters and nuclear weapons, and then invaded France and England Simaltaniously. He then should have invaded Russia in early March (key) with fully winterized troops and vehicles. He then would have pushed into Africa and the remainder of Asia, finishing off with Japan. He also believes that he could have pacified the US, thus being able to settle with 3 solid continets.

What do you think?

The world would be a better place if Hitler had won. Communism would have been wiped out. America would have lost its arrogance. It wouldn't be spreading its corporate and commercial and media poison all over the world. Europe would be strong and unified under German control.

I will explain exactly what Hitler shouldhave done: he should have shot himself in the head when he was in the trenches in WWI

and anyone who supports Hitler would not like to meet me... especially if I am wearing a ski mask, and holding a baseball bat (Nazis should be whiped off this planet, we need diversity, not some "Master race" of inbred assholes (no offence meant to arians) but the inbreeding is almost what sHitler was proposing)

Because Hitler was not in his right mind it would prohibit him from making correct decisions when it came to the fight against Europe. After all, he was in charge and made all of the military decisions during most of the war and this is what led to the demise of the German State. Even his own generals understood this, and therefore kept him drugged by opium(no joke-I read somewhere that he used to get massages from a masseur who was told to use opium to drug him) while they made the decisions because they saw that hitler was insane and loosing to many battles in the later years of the war. So they took control and put hitler in his place. Germany would have won the war if Hitler had left the military stuff up to his Generals and staff.

Not that I ever liked the man anyway, he was such a physcotic Maniac who killed millions of jews of others in concentration camps and death camps. And his fascist ideals led to a war that caused sixty million people to lose their lives.

I'll second everything that New Scott-land said, but also:
Sure Hitler couldn't have won. Sure, it's worth learning from his mistakes. But it's also worth looking at the mistakes of the 'victors'. In particular the US: after Pearl Harbour, the only naval forces you had in the Pacific that mattered were the carriers and the submarines. What were the submarines doing for the next year? Firing dud torpedos! Why? Because the 'new, improved' torpedo was the baby of a senior officer and he fought every effort to have them improved or scapped. (Once he was finally outmanoeouvered, the subs proved devestatingly effective). You lost the Phillipines because MacArthur was an incompetent idiot. You lost the chance to trap the German forces in Italy because the general ignored his orders as he wanted to be known for 'liberating' Rome. You got decimated at Normandy because you didn't listen when told what had happened at Dieppe.

None of the commanders involved was shot - They should all have been.

sometimes the difference between a socialistic (arab)nationalist regime and a national socialist one can be awful vague.

Fascism had a lot of influence. The Baathist parties were a mixture of fascism, socialism, and arab nationalism. Syria still displays all three of these tendencies to this day.

The Peronist goverment in Argentina was to some degree modelled on Italian fascism. Peron was a great admirer of Mussolini. It's amusing that when they made a movie about Eva Peron with Madonna they forgot to mention that.

The world would be a better place if Hitler had won. Communism would have been wiped out. America would have lost its arrogance. It wouldn't be spreading its corporate and commercial and media poison all over the world. Europe would be strong and unified under German control.

Not to mention the destruction and relocation of various 'undesirable' races, and the fact that we'd all have killer Arian bodies! Blue eyes and blonde hair as far as the eye can see...

I'm glad someone thinks Nazi Germany would have made the world a better place. <sarcasm>

I will explain exactly what Hitler shouldhave done: he should have shot himself in the head when he was in the trenches in WWI

and anyone who supports Hitler would not like to meet me... especially if I am wearing a ski mask, and holding a baseball bat (Nazis should be whiped off this planet, we need diversity, not some "Master race" of inbred assholes (no offence meant to arians) but the inbreeding is almost what sHitler was proposing)

Hitler was great. He did the best he could under difficult circumstances, nothing more could be asked of the guy.

Not to mention the destruction and relocation of various 'undesirable' races, and the fact that we'd all have killer Arian bodies! Blue eyes and blonde hair as far as the eye can see...

I'm glad someone thinks Nazi Germany would have made the world a better place. <sarcasm>

There are a lot of people around who think Nazi Germany would have made the world a better place. And they don't all vote Democrat <sarcasm>

Because Hitler was not in his right mind it would prohibit him from making correct decisions when it came to the fight against Europe. After all, he was in charge and made all of the military decisions during most of the war and this is what led to the demise of the German State. Even his own generals understood this, and therefore kept him drugged by opium(no joke-I read somewhere that he used to get massages from a masseur who was told to use opium to drug him) while they made the decisions because they saw that hitler was insane and loosing to many battles in the later years of the war. So they took control and put hitler in his place. Germany would have won the war if Hitler had left the military stuff up to his Generals and staff.

Not that I ever liked the man anyway, he was such a physcotic Maniac who killed millions of jews of others in concentration camps and death camps. And his fascist ideals led to a war that caused sixty million people to lose their lives.

The number of lives that Hitler took, for philosophical and political and racial reasons, are insignificant compared to the lives that were lost because of communism. Communists wiped out tens of millions of people in total in soviet russia, china, ethiopia, cambodia. I'm sure they had their reasons, that may have appeared right at the time. But all the murder the communists committed doesn't get quite the same attention as what Hitler committed. I wonder why?
Not that anything Hitler did bothers me one bit, if you know what I mean. ;)

Quote:
The world would be a better place if Hitler had won. Communism would have been wiped out. America would have lost its arrogance. It wouldn't be spreading its corporate and commercial and media poison all over the world. Europe would be strong and unified under German control.

Saru Prosterity must not have all his dogs barking, to think that it is alright for such a maniac in control the whole of europe. Think of all the dead, millions, perhaps billions dead from a continued war. He could have easily decided to invade the rest of the world when he realised that Europe was easy. You should think about this. :mp5: :mp5:

Actually, the T-34 wasn't a very good tank at all. Historians have only called it a better tank because it had much more bang for the buck, so to speak. Which is what the Russians did: build a whole lot of T-34s and attack en masse. Definitely weaker than most German tanks, but more than made up for it in numbers.

I also think Hitler made two mistakes, but I don't think declaring war on America was one of them. The Americans were already helping out the British with both supplies and their "lend-lease" program. U.S. Army "volunteers" flew planes for the RAF during the war. Declaring war on the U.S. didn't change very much at all, if you think about it.

Anyways, those two mistakes were 1.) Invading Russia at that moment in time and 2.) having the Luftwaffe getting the stuffing kicked out of them by the RAF. See, as pointed out earlier, Hitler invaded Russia but completely forgot about Russia's superweapon. The Russians prolly forgot about it too, but it worked anyway: Russian Winter. Yeah... invading in winter into the largest country in the world and forgetting about a minor detail called logistics and supply lines was pretty stupid. Especially when the Russians were obviously instituting the "Scorched Earth" protocol. As for the Luftwaffe, well... If I remember correctly, Hitler was furious when RAF bombers pounded Berlin. So furious that he made it a point to blow up British industry and city infrastructure. Which, of course, gave the RAF time to at least get planes operational and radar working again. So the Luftwaffe get completely taken by surprise when they find RAF fighters breathing down their necks, fighters which they thought were already destroyed.

And what's this talk that Hitler should have bunkered down and made all of Europe one huge fortress. That's what he TRIED to do. Remember the Atlantic Wall? The only problem would be Russia (with the huge border they have with the rest of Europe), which could be why Germany invaded Russia earlier than they should have. But, anywho, he built the Atlantic Wall, which was to pretty much make Europe a fortress. The wall's one weakness was by air attack, and with his Luftwaffe crippled, the wall was pretty much doomed to fail.

I'd also like to quip about this anti-French thing. Yeah, you can say that more Americans died on French soil than the reverse, but countless French civilians had died, as well. America is lucky in the sense that they are isolated, so that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum during a war.

And for the record, I'm American.

Oh, and at least say something that has to do with the original topic. Don't go off on freaking tangents about things like communism and french people. If you want to talk about them, make your own post.

Just a diclaimer, Hitler was insane and what he did was in no way justified. What follows is just an intellecual study.

Me and a freind frequently discuss the above question, and how this man so royally screwed up. He says the Hitler should have waited until 1942, giving him time to devolop jet fighters and nuclear weapons, and then invaded France and England Simaltaniously. He then should have invaded Russia in early March (key) with fully winterized troops and vehicles. He then would have pushed into Africa and the remainder of Asia, finishing off with Japan. He also believes that he could have pacified the US, thus being able to settle with 3 solid continets.

What do you think?

Germany never had the recources o build a nuclear weapon, so wipe that one...How would he invade England and france at the same time? He wouldn't have enough men to do both at the same time. And if we assuming that this strike is how he would start the War, that would mean there would be alot of troops in Britain...

Quote:
The world would be a better place if Hitler had won. Communism would have been wiped out. America would have lost its arrogance. It wouldn't be spreading its corporate and commercial and media poison all over the world. Europe would be strong and unified under German control.

Saru Prosterity must not have all his dogs barking, to think that it is alright for such a maniac in control the whole of europe. Think of all the dead, millions, perhaps billions dead from a continued war. He could have easily decided to invade the rest of the world when he realised that Europe was easy. You should think about this. :mp5: :mp5:

I don't think so. It's a common misconception that Hitler was a nut and would have destroyed the world. If Hitler had won, you would have had America and a German controlled Europe as opposing forces instead of America and the soviets. Germany would have been militarily exhausted by the war and would have had no desire to continue or provoke a new war with America. I guess it would have been a kind of a draw. Sure, Hitler would have had nuclear weapons by the late 40's. But he's hardly likely to use them against the US when it would mean Germany would be destroyed without a doubt.
This is all just speculative of course, maybe the US would have used nukes against Germany before Hitler acquired them. Who knows. But I still think Europe would have been better off under national socialism. If only the Germans could have taken England though! The swastika flying over Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament would have been a thrill to see.

I'd also like to quip about this anti-French thing. Yeah, you can say that more Americans died on French soil than the reverse, but countless French civilians had died, as well. America is lucky in the sense that they are isolated, so that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum during a war.

And for the record, I'm American.

Oh, and at least say something that has to do with the original topic. Don't go off on freaking tangents about things like communism and french people. If you want to talk about them, make your own post.

Well, the French deserve a good kicking now and again. And the communists certainly do. So, I think I'll ignore your suggestion. Thanks anyway.

Saru Posterity: The number of deaths the Nazi Party was directly responsible for (namely, the Jews), might not be as high as the death toll involved during the propagation of Communism, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that communism always occurs in a context of social upheaval in their respective countries (thus the body count), and that the Nazi government wasn't around long enough and wasn't widely-dominant enough to do damage to the rest of the world.

One political party ordering effective genocide in its territory(ies) is NOT better than hundreds of local conflicts spanning dozens of countries that arose from internal problems.

If Nazism was still a legitimate ideology that had government backing, it would most probably turn out to be another militaristic despotism (the Fuhrer's cult of personality geared towards racial cleansing- sounds like Saddam and the Shi'ites, eh?) that could cause as much (probably more) deaths than Communism.

Communism was wrong, mostly because of its implementation, but it was ideologically good, except for the concept of violent revolution. And more often than not Communism just turned into an ideological justification for a bloody revolt and the excuse for another group of armed despots seizing power, not a party that actually wanted to implement sweeping social change for the working classes.

I'm not saying that Communism is right, only that Nazism and Communism in its implementation are both wrong. The only reason democracy really works is that it's the only model takes into account-and actually encourages, with capitalism- that man usually looks out for himself, his interests. It's the only (mostly) successful political model with decent implementation we've had so far, which is why we use it.

I think most people have to actually look at the ideology if they want to bash it, not just pull out of their ass the anti-Red propaganda everyone else has been force-fed since the Cold War.

The Soviet Union (read Stalin) expected Hitler to act in this way. Had he waited to invade Russia intil March 1942 his troops would have met fierce resistance from fortified border positions, instead of a constantly retreating scrappy force that was completely unprepared for the conflict. Given the amount of resources available to Stalin at the time, if Hitler had waited before invading the Soviet Union, I would have to say that France and most likely Britain would be speaking Russian for much of the 20th century. :)

I read only the first 5 posts so this will probably seem way off-topic...

Hitler's biggest problem was attacking Russia, especially when he did. Napolean Bonaparte tried the same thing and failed. Why? Because Russia has a habit of standing and fighting until winter rolls around and then they bury themselves in the snow and let the enemy advance. Russia has absolutely brutal winters and neither Napolean's French nor Hitler's German troops were prepared for that kind of weather. The Russians let nature fight the war for them. It's an excellent tactic to because it always seems to work.

Developing jet power would certainly have helped him. The German Me-262A was vastly superior to anything the Allies possessed. The fact that the Bf-109 (German's primary fighter) was named the World's Best Fighter Plane in 1939 simply made Hitler think he had an edge (think being the operative word. I'd prefer a Supermarine Spitfire myself).

well he never should have stabbed the gays in the back who brought him to power in the first place, that's where he messed up to begin with and set the patern of goofiness that eventualy undid him.

of course he should have done a surface invasion of england while he had the chance and he never should have messed up his chances in north africa by his fiasco of micromanaging rommel.

his whole propaganda thing of passing off a bunch of pseudosciences as real science was another one.

and if he hadn't had that emotional fixation with antisemitism he would have had the atom bomb before any of us.

and of course he should never have allowed japan to bomb pearl harbour, or made them wait a few more months or years before doing so.

but the beggist mystake all would be world concorors seem to make is trying to suppress the diversity that is the nature of reality.

hopefully i need not point out the parallels to what the bush adminstration has done and is doing, including the
fanaticly fundimentalist christer nonsense.

developing 'rapid deployment' military methods wasn't dumb, but using it from jump on neighbors he could have compromised and anexed diplomaticly was. even though this was at first tremendously successfull, it was like a steam engine with a lot of high speed wheels and too small of a boiler to keep generating enough steam.

everything was about immediate tactical gratification and far too little was long term stratigy that takes into account and corrects for worse case possibilities that he refused to consider or even listen to.

he really wasn't a very good long term planer, and was a total retarded assinign idiot for refusing to listen to anyone who was.

you can say that moral errors don't have linier and ineveitable short term consiquences, or argue about what moral errors are and arn't, but several of the stratigic errors i've mentioned would also, in my own estimation at least, count as moral ones as well.

to some this may seem ironic and to others absurd, but if you don't care how much harm you cause, the increased probability of your own suffering, a stitistical rather then linear consiquece granted, is not some fantastical cannon of belief, but an objectively observable phenomina of nature, again albeit a statistical one.

nor is reality greatly moved by attemts to narrow diversity which is its intrinsic and only intrinsic nature.

=^^=
.../\...

Hitler was not in his right mind and you are all wrong if you thought he could have won the war. What happened in world war two happened because god wanted it to happen and you should all accept that!

I don't think god had anything to do with that...

I think the smartest thing hitler could have done is not exist. :sniper:

Again I am just trying to point out the hypocrasy of the current French regime.

It seems to me that the point you are trying to make is that you think the French are abhorrent for doing things which are in their own best interests, whereas if they had any dignity they would do what is the USA's own best interests, yes?

The building of ships takes months, if not years.

The US, however, were at one point knocking out Liberty ships with standard construction times of 42 days - one of them was even launched 4 days, 15 1/2 hours after the keel was laid.

I read only the first 5 posts so this will probably seem way off-topic...

Hitler's biggest problem was attacking Russia, especially when he did. Napolean Bonaparte tried the same thing and failed. Why? Because Russia has a habit of standing and fighting until winter rolls around and then they bury themselves in the snow and let the enemy advance. Russia has absolutely brutal winters and neither Napolean's French nor Hitler's German troops were prepared for that kind of weather. The Russians let nature fight the war for them. It's an excellent tactic to because it always seems to work.

Developing jet power would certainly have helped him. The German Me-262A was vastly superior to anything the Allies possessed. The fact that the Bf-109 (German's primary fighter) was named the World's Best Fighter Plane in 1939 simply made Hitler think he had an edge (think being the operative word. I'd prefer a Supermarine Spitfire myself).
No the 262 was not as advanced as the Meteor, and if the jet had been developed in England when it was first proposed jets would have been flying over England nearly five years sooner.

Developing jet power would certainly have helped him. The German Me-262A was vastly superior to anything the Allies possessed. The fact that the Bf-109 (German's primary fighter) was named the World's Best Fighter Plane in 1939 simply made Hitler think he had an edge (think being the operative word. I'd prefer a Supermarine Spitfire myself).

Where would he have got the resources to actually field considerable numbers of Me-262's? Remember that by the time they were operational Germany was so short of supplies that they had to be dragged out of their hangers by teams of horses rather than powered vehicles.

of course he should have done a surface invasion of england while he had the chance and he never should have messed up his chances in north africa by his fiasco of micromanaging rommel.

Exactly when did he have a chance of a successful invasion of Great Britain?

it was probably my post about the various uses for the german 88mm cannon, i admit it, i was talking out my ass.... sorry.

Nah, that seemed okay to me, except for calling it a 'cannon'.

Right, I've had this arguement with friends who are military historians many times. I'd like to share some insights we have found into how Hitler could have one and other misconceptions about victory in the East:

1) One of the major reasons for the logistical failure in Russia, was the Russian train network track gauge was slightly larger than the European standard. Thus the Germans had to relay their own track and use their own engines, or capture Russian rolling stock. If they had recognised this they could have either produced their own rolling stock of that gauge in sufficent amounts or planned Fallschirmjage drops to take Rolling Stock.

2) The big logistalical problem I believe was the Soviet railway bottlenecks e.g. Minsk and Kracow. Which for example meant adequate winter clothing didn't reach the troops because more mundane supplies were deamed more nessacary e.g. new troops, ammunition, food etc...

3) Hitler could not have invaded England successfully til at least 1944 (if at all and by 1944 it would so well defended it would take a bloodbath to capture it)... why? The Royal Navy at Scarpa Flow would have cut his naval invasion force to ribbons even if they were being pounded day in day out by the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine. The RN would have cut supplies to the troops in England long enough for the Army to slaughter the Germans despite inferior equipment. 1944 is the year incidently Admiral Raeder gave as the earliest date the Kriegsmarine could take on the RN on equal terms.

4) Waiting til 1942 for Russia is erronous in concept. Hitler invaded at the right time in fact, just when the purges had just occured, invading in 1942 would mean an more organised Soviet Command staff, a soviet army with more tanks many of the T-34 model (the Germans would have not developed anything other than what they had in 1941... why no experience of the T-34 and KV-1, maybe more short-barreled Pz IV's and III's but nothing like the later model PIV's, V's and VI's), the Soviets would have known Hitler was coming i.e. Stalin suspected 1942 to be the year of the Invasion of Russia.

5) Hitler could have used the Jews and other undisirables as a labour force in my opinion and concentrated the SS on the Eastern front, where they performed superly as a military unit. Also, would have freeed up rolling stock and railway space for the provision of supplies to the East.

6) The Russian Partisan war was inevitable in a sense but also controlable Hitler could have not launched the Einsatzgruppen and used the troops to bolster his Waffen-SS units and the local's to form into Frei Wehrmacht or SS units. He should have attached smallish units to the resident police forces, where they existed and used them to help control the small number of partisans.

7) Using actual good administrators for the occupied terroritories in the East... too many were blinded by ideology, they could have possibly met the Wehrmacht's needs in new tanks/ammunition/aircraft etc...

8) They could have moved to a full war footing earlier, that would have given them the economic production of lets say 1944 in 1941-2, which alone could mean possible overal victory.

9) They should have set a principle overriding objective for the campaign, e.g. Caucauses/Moscow/Leningrad... personally I would the choose the former, because of the oil capacity and the fact that the terrain was perfect for Blitzkrieg.

Those are some suggustions and counter arguements I could make loads, but that's just a taster.

He might have been able to invade england if he was well equipt and invaded soon enough

He might have been able to invade england if he was well equipt and invaded soon enough

Okay:

1. from where would he getthe resources to invade Great Britain? What would he have to cut back on to free them up, and what consequences would this have had?

2. If you have seen the plans for Operation Sealion you will realise the whole thing was a farce as far as any chance of success would have gone, even assuming he had the resources, so you have to at least put forward an alternative plan.

3. Once again - "invading soon enough" - when is soon enough considering he never had the free manpower or equipment to press home the attacks he was already involved in? Remember that the RAF and the Royal Navy were never effectively neutralised as defensive forces.

In Hindsight, the German army should have continues onto Dunkirk in '39, instead of turning round to have the triumphant parade through Paris. He would have captured a huge proportion of the British and French army. They were preparing to surrender I recall, as their ammunition had almost run out (So to had the panzer divisions chasing them, which was also part of the reason the German army didn't force the issue).
He should have left the Italians to rot in the Balkans and continued the momentum into Russia. These extra 6 weeks were crucial in the end. Germany would have been able to take over Moscow had they attacked earlier.
Finally, he should have sued for peace late 1941/early 1942. With the British prisoners he captured at Dunkirk and the vast amount of Russian land (including the capital) would have put him in a commanding position to consolidate his power. The Russians and British would be very suspicious of him, but at this time (1941/1942, assuming success in Russia and capture of the British forces at Dunkirk) Hitler would have held all the trump cards. Stalin would have agreed if it meant the Germans pulling back from Moscow.
He could have, I feel, total control over the all those Eastern European countries, probably a good chunk of Russia to act as a buffer zone between Poland and Russia, etc etc. Set up France as a semi-autonomy state - as long as they had their wine, cheese, garlic and free love, they wouldn't complain too much. Take control of Poland, the Balkans, Austria, Hungary amd so on.
Pretty much set up a German empire over much of Eastern Europe.

Now imagine instead of the Cold War, a bipolar world, we still had three great powers, USSR, Nazi Germany and the United States, a kind of tri-polar world where the US would be mostly a Pacific Power (after nuking Japan to submission) and a heavily fortified Greater German border against the USSR.

Who would have gotten a hold of the oil in Middle East do you think?

the british!!!!

The world would be a better place if Hitler had won. Communism would have been wiped out. America would have lost its arrogance. It wouldn't be spreading its corporate and commercial and media poison all over the world. Europe would be strong and unified under German control.

and the planet would have a few billion less people. Personally i think i prefer corporate and commecial and media poison which only kills a few braincells, than being in a room with other people similar to yourself and being told by the guards that your all having a "shower".
I'd rather have an arrogant america than a genocidal germany

The number of lives that Hitler took, for philosophical and political and racial reasons, are insignificant compared to the lives that were lost because of communism. Communists wiped out tens of millions of people in total in soviet russia, china, ethiopia, cambodia. I'm sure they had their reasons, that may have appeared right at the time. But all the murder the communists committed doesn't get quite the same attention as what Hitler committed. I wonder why?
Not that anything Hitler did bothers me one bit, if you know what I mean. ;)

ok. lets see. why the communist regimes of the world has done, have been and are terrible. The people involved should be brought to justice if any are still around. But in terms of ratio, hitler was the worst. What are we looking at? 6 million gassed and another 20 million through war/famine. all this is 6 years.

He should never have attacked the British Empire, that was his main mistake but ironically his first plan was to ally with the British because he admired their Imperialism.
If Hitler had put all his forces on the eastern front after capuring France, then he would have eventually defeated Russia. This would also have meant Britainwould have defeated the Japanese when they attacked their Asian territory (singapore, Hong Kong etc) because all their forces wouldn't have been spread on 3 fronts (Europe, Africa and Asia). The Italians would never have attacked British territory in Africa without the Germans, so there would have been a stand off between the British Empire and the Fascists untill nuclear weapons were created. It is well known that Einstein was the first to discover nuclear capabilities, he was also intent on seeing only the USA having this technology and with the very close relationship between Rosevelt and Churchill would have meant that the British Empire/USA would have launched Nuclear weapons first, thus defeating the Fascisits anyway, ending the war and also leaving the British Empire intact :).

Now imagine instead of the Cold War, a bipolar world, we still had three great powers, USSR, Nazi Germany and the United States, a kind of tri-polar world where the US would be mostly a Pacific Power (after nuking Japan to submission) and a heavily fortified Greater German border against the USSR.

Who would have gotten a hold of the oil in Middle East do you think?
What about a quad-polar world? the USA, British Empire, Nazi Germany and USSR. Sounds interesting eh, i wonder what would have happened?

First for the T-34 thing.
It was also considered damn strong tank because of the way the Armor was sloped. (So I've been led to believe). Because of it's Armor practices (Which the USA now uses in their modern Tanks) it could take a direct frontal hit from a Tiger Tank and survive.

I think the smartest thing hitler could have done is not exist. :sniper:

I'm going out on a Limb here. Disclaimer, I don't support Hitler or his practices.

But I have to say, have any of you considered what would happen if Hitler had killed himself? Or was eliminated?

First. Most of the following events are taken from the Game series C&C Red Alert. ((And this will be short(er)))

So let's say, Hitler disappears from the world Pre-1936. Stalin had been since the beginning of his reign upgrading his industry. That would mean you would have had an Ambitious USSR with the power to back himself up.

As well, you would never (The USA) have gained Einstien, or quite a few other scientists that fled Hitler's reign. Chances are your Nuclear Program would have been fairly weak.
Stalin would have crushed Finland during the Winter War.
He might have set his eyes on Romania and Poland then. Perhaps to regain lost territory in the Balkans. Presumably he would have been able to fight this war across Europe. Japan -may- have allied. But far more likely would be China (Communist). In which case they may have punted the Japs (With Soviet Support, presuming the Japs invaded anyways) right back to their home islands.

Stalin would concentrate in Western Europe, and then just pummel through. With superior forces and numbers he probably would have taken weakened (Again, Presuming no Strong leader took Hitler's place. Unlikely considering the circumstances that allowed Hitler to rise to power).
Germany. Expanding his Industry in Germany (Which has quite a capacity) as well as resource, men and industry from the Balkans (Of course these could be considered Negated due to the need for Infantry to hold the regions already conquered).

With the combined power of Germany (Pre-War status Supposed) and the USSR, Had Stalin been so inclined, France would have fallen. Spain (If the Facist Party Won the Revolution and took power) Would most likely have been next, Mainland Italy as well.

At this point on any map, Most of it would be Red. As well, it could be argued for several pushes into the Middle East. Most likely Turkey would have fallen giving Stalin access to the Med.

However it would be here his conquests would hold for a while. Why? The Soviet's lack of a navy.
They would need (For a Soviet Operation Sealion) an navy capable of beating the British Navy down. As well, production (And Research) Of the Navy and Aircraft would have taken a higher standing. Both would be needed to get his Army across and onto England. Once there their superior Numbers could easily have overrun.

Now. Considering Japan was limited, it is possible that the USA may never have officially entered the war, up until Britian was invaded. This is of course only hypothetical, but I suspect they may have taken notice when the Island was landed upon.

Stalin also may have opted for taking Sweden/Norway Prior to any Invasion of England, allowing for the Northern Part of the island to be bombed as well.

Well. My times up. Enjoy and let me know what you think of my possibilities. :P I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

Hitler should have stopped with poland and Austria and the bit from Tchechoslovakia

First for the T-34 thing.
It was also considered damn strong tank because of the way the Armor was sloped. (So I've been led to believe). Because of it's Armor practices (Which the USA now uses in their modern Tanks) it could take a direct frontal hit from a Tiger Tank and survive.




According to "Tank vs Tank" , the T34/85 (the most common model) armour failed when fired upon at 1500m from a tiger or 2000m from a PantherD whereas the T34 needed to get to 500m min. to get a Tiger I (non-sloped) or 100m to penetrate the Panthers improved sloped armour. The Tiger used an 88mm, Panther a 75mm, and the T34 a 85mm.

In Hindsight, the German army should have continues onto Dunkirk in '39, instead of turning round to have the triumphant parade through Paris.

...and give the Weygand Line time to prepare itself to face the renewed offensive, let's not forget they were already over-extended (Why do you think the counterattack at Arras so scared the Nazis). They still were not in Paris yet, and weren't any closer then they had been in 1914.

He would have captured a huge proportion of the British and French army.

The areas around Dunkurque are some of the worst for any offensive action in France, they are very muddy and inundated, with lots of hills, there's no gaurantee they could destroy the Dunkurque pocket before they evacuate (the German garrison found the terrain quite favorable, holding out until after the war was over).

They were preparing to surrender I recall, as their ammunition had almost run out (So to had the panzer divisions chasing them, which was also part of the reason the German army didn't force the issue).

Actually, you may be confusing the French First Army's stand in Lille with the BEF in Calais and Dunkurque. The BEF was not preparing to surrender, and neither was the French First Army, but the First Army was encircled in Lille, and fought on until they literally ran out of ammunition. The BEF had ammunition and supplies, but they were drastically outnumbered and outequipped. And the claim of capturing large numbers of French forces is off as well, since the First Army was indeed destroyed, and of the French who were evacuated by Dynamo, the vast majority immediately returned to France to fight on, and were thus captured later.

He should have left the Italians to rot in the Balkans and continued the momentum into Russia. These extra 6 weeks were crucial in the end. Germany would have been able to take over Moscow had they attacked earlier.

They would have been able to reach Moscow had he not taken a Balkans excursion, there is no gaurantee they could have taken the city, they reached Leningrad and Stalingrad, neither city fell. And leaving Italy to rot in the Balkans leaves the British with bases to bomb Ploesti, and an unprotected flank, Hitler still had memories of the Salinoka Front's slow dithering of strength from the Central Powers cause, and the eventual downfall of Austria-Hungary.

Finally, he should have sued for peace late 1941/early 1942. With the British prisoners he captured at Dunkirk and the vast amount of Russian land (including the capital) would have put him in a commanding position to consolidate his power.

Even without the trained troops which in an outlandish action have been captured, I don't think Great Britain would have gave in, and as I said before, the Moscow battle is really a tossup on who will win, and may just be an earlier Stalingrad.

He could have, I feel, total control over the all those Eastern European countries, probably a good chunk of Russia to act as a buffer zone between Poland and Russia, etc etc. Set up France as a semi-autonomy state - as long as they had their wine, cheese, garlic and free love, they wouldn't complain too much. Take control of Poland, the Balkans, Austria, Hungary amd so on.
Pretty much set up a German empire over much of Eastern Europe.

His dream scenario I would imagine (well, if you include Britain allying with him).

According to "Tank vs Tank" , the T34/85 (the most common model)

Eh? Not even late war was the T34/85 more common than the T34/76mm. There were about 34,000 76mil produced and only about 23,000 85mils.

Me and a freind frequently discuss the above question, and how this man so royally screwed up. He says the Hitler should have waited until 1942, giving him time to devolop jet fighters and nuclear weapons,

Err..... Germany was never close to developing Nuclear weapons, and it lacked almost all the materials needed to construct one. Had he waited until 1942, his economy would have probably collapsed under him, he only reinvigorated Germany's economy by running a Keynesian economy on a massive scale, and without war, it was bound to completely collapse. At a stretch, Germany may have been able to reach 1940 before a total collapse, but no further, he had to attack in 1939 to obtain the materials Germany needed to keep going.

and then invaded France and England Simaltaniously.

Which conveniently gives both France and Britian more time to modernize their forces (they had been doing so since Munich), the French had already formed Armored divisions and motorized ones, and the Armee d'le air was being drastically modernized, not to mention how could he invade Britain at the same time, considering the Kreigsmarine was always way behind the Royal Navy, and crossing the Dover Straits was worrisome enough, imagine the North Sea.

He then should have invaded Russia in early March (key) with fully winterized troops and vehicles.

Russia's rearmament and reorganizational plan would also have been nearly complete by 1942, and they would have been in a much better position to contest a German advance. And how will he get all of these vehicles, the only reason he had even the ones he had for Barbarossa was becuase he was able to acquire all the motorized vehicles being produced becuase of war.

He then would have pushed into Africa and the remainder of Asia, finishing off with Japan. He also believes that he could have pacified the US, thus being able to settle with 3 solid continets.

Now that's going really out there, pushing all the way through the Cuacasus, Iraq, the Levant, Palestine, and into Egypt is stretching his forces to an uimagineable breaking point, and there isn't exactly a lot of good terrain to move forces deeper into Asia with.

Here's an idea for you, Sword & Shield: immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbour, instead of declaring war on the US, Hitler disowns Japan and its actions, thus hoping to keep the US from directly and officially interfering in the European/North African war. How smart would it have been to break the German-Japanese pact?

According to "Tank vs Tank" , the T34/85 (the most common model) armour failed when fired upon at 1500m from a tiger or 2000m from a PantherD whereas the T34 needed to get to 500m min. to get a Tiger I (non-sloped) or 100m to penetrate the Panthers improved sloped armour. The Tiger used an 88mm, Panther a 75mm, and the T34 a 85mm.

For penetration tabels and tecnical info, visit here, it might help for the ones that want the exact numbers:http://www.achtungpanzer.com/profiles.htm

Won't give my penetration list, that is private and would make ya all jalous :p

He should never have attacked the British Empire, that was his main mistake but ironically his first plan was to ally with the British because he admired their Imperialism.
If Hitler had put all his forces on the eastern front after capuring France, then he would have eventually defeated Russia. This would also have meant Britainwould have defeated the Japanese when they attacked their Asian territory (singapore, Hong Kong etc) because all their forces wouldn't have been spread on 3 fronts (Europe, Africa and Asia). The Italians would never have attacked British territory in Africa without the Germans, so there would have been a stand off between the British Empire and the Fascists untill nuclear weapons were created. It is well known that Einstein was the first to discover nuclear capabilities, he was also intent on seeing only the USA having this technology and with the very close relationship between Rosevelt and Churchill would have meant that the British Empire/USA would have launched Nuclear weapons first, thus defeating the Fascisits anyway, ending the war and also leaving the British Empire intact :).
Ah a dream scenario...just imagine if that the British Empire still existed today then the world would be a lot safer place. Zimbabwe for one would still have thousands of white farmers that kept creating food for a 1/3 of Africa, where as now Mugabe killed or deported thousands of white farmers and now Zimbabwe cant even feed themselves! - And that is just ONE example...

What about a quad-polar world? the USA, British Empire, Nazi Germany and USSR. Sounds interesting eh, i wonder what would have happened?
Im guessing if that happened the British Empire and the USA would create some kind of pact that prevents the Fascist and Communist countries from benefiting too much from the worlds resources, i.e oil.

Ah a dream scenario...just imagine if that the British Empire still existed today then the world would be a lot safer place.

I think that if the British Empire still existed in the form it did at the end of WWII then the world would not necessarilly be any safer - imagine Northern Ireland 69-94 happening in a lot of the old imperial holdings... when you scale that up for a country the size of India you would have quite an incendiary situation. Not that it is of course definite that all independence movements would adopt the bullet rather than the ballot box, but hey, you know...

Eh? Not even late war was the T34/85 more common than the T34/76mm. There were about 34,000 76mil produced and only about 23,000 85mils.

My apologies. I meant to say ONE OF..... even still. The T-34 was typical of the Soviets. Some fantastic( if simple) innovations, rugged, easily used and produced. One on one w/ a German tank was suicide but there were lots of them. Same w/ the Sherman. Had German industry gone on a war footing before the bombing took the majority of it out, they may have been able to stalemate.

Here's an idea for you, Sword & Shield: immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbour, instead of declaring war on the US, Hitler disowns Japan and its actions, thus hoping to keep the US from directly and officially interfering in the European/North African war. How smart would it have been to break the German-Japanese pact?

It is defitely the smarter idea. Had Hitler not declared war on the US, then it would have taken many months of negotiations with Congress to get a decleration of war against Germany. If Hitler rebukes Japan, he can definitely hold off the US until late '42, possibly even '43.

This would have meant the abandonement of the Europe First policy, which in the long-term means less resources and troops for the European Theater, meaning either the Allies abandone many of their periphereal campaigns (Like Italy), or go into Overlord without as many troops.

If Hitler rebukes Japan, he can definitely hold off the US until late '42, possibly even '43.

It also has very direct affects, without war with Germany, would Roosevelt have given the British 600 Sherman tanks and SP Artillery pieces that were so crucial to the Battle of El Alamein? I think not, which would have definitely prolonged the War in the Desert. There would be no Operation Torch, which depending on the outcome of El Alamein, will either prolong the Desert War, or have no effect.

The Strategic Bombing Campaign was largely ineffectual from 1942-43, so it will not be sorely missed if it begins later. The Battle of the Atlantic will be severely effected, since during 1942 it was only the power of American shipyards that kept the merchant navies afloat (And later, it was the American B-24 that closed the Air Gap). Without war, it is doubtful the USN would have taken a more proactive approach then they already were, and British losses wil continue to be far ahead of replacement without US Shipyards.

But all of this will only prolong the war, none of it will win it for Hitler (except possibly the Battle of the Atlantic, but a clear cut victory is not guaranteed), to determine that, you must look over Lend-Lease's contribution to the Soviet war machine. Would Lend-Lease have been as forthcoming to the Soviets if the US was not focused on Germany? Without those 13 million pairs of winter boots, the Soviets would have been in much the same position as the Germans in concerns of boots, and without the trucks sent (3/4 of all Soviet trucks were made in the US and sent via Lend-Lease), the Soviet offensive would have floundered in White Russia in 1944.

In the end, rebuking Japan does not mean Hitler will win the war, but it will definitely prolong it (probably to 1946), to win it, relies on several other factors, such as when will the Western Allies finally return to the Continent (The US is bound to DoW Germany sometime), can Germany effectively use the breathing space it gets by the Soviets floundering in White Russia to turn around their reverses and regain the initiative? But no matter how you look at it, scolding Japan and dis-honoring the Alliance (which, technically only required him to stand by Japan if the US attacked Japan) was what he should have done, and would have been the smart thing to do, what he did was probably his biggest blunder.

I think that if the British Empire still existed in the form it did at the end of WWII then the world would not necessarilly be any safer - imagine Northern Ireland 69-94 happening in a lot of the old imperial holdings... when you scale that up for a country the size of India you would have quite an incendiary situation. Not that it is of course definite that all independence movements would adopt the bullet rather than the ballot box, but hey, you know...
Well you say that but when reporters go back to a lot of the former British colonies a suprising amount of people there say that things were better when the British were in control because they were a lot more compatent when it came to building their infrastructure (i.e Hosopitals, police stations, railway, roads, farms etc) and controlled crime a lot better. This is not just my opinion, it is also what former British subjects have told reporters when interviewed on numerous programmes i have seen which were irronically filmed to find out about other countries cultures...

Well you say that but when reporters go back to a lot of the former British colonies a suprising amount of people there say that things were better when the British were in control because they were a lot more compatent when it came to building their infrastructure (i.e Hosopitals, police stations, railway, roads, farms etc) and controlled crime a lot better. This is not just my opinion, it is also what former British subjects have told reporters when interviewed on numerous programmes i have seen which were irronically filmed to find out about other countries cultures...

But did the ask the one important question.

Did they want the British back?

But did the ask the one important question.

Did they want the British back?
Yes they did suprisingly, i found it quite unbelievable the first time i heard former British subjects say that, but then i heard it several more times in other countires aswell and now i beleive that it is a popular idea in many of the former colonies.

Yes they did suprisingly, i found it quite unbelievable the first time i heard former British subjects say that, but then i heard it several more times in other countires aswell and now i beleive that it is a popular idea in many of the former colonies.

Yes, but returning again to Northern Ireland as our worst-case scenario example we see that a large proportion (if not the majority) of the population wish to remain as British subjects of some form or another. Yet still the 'troubles' took place and continue to do so in a more muted form. All it would have taken was an unhappy minority prepared to up the ante for a similar flashpoint situation to occur if other parts of the British Empire hadn't been granted their independence.

Hey, topic drift. I lurve it.

But all of this will only prolong the war, none of it will win it for Hitler (except possibly the Battle of the Atlantic, but a clear cut victory is not guaranteed), to determine that, you must look over Lend-Lease's contribution to the Soviet war machine. Would Lend-Lease have been as forthcoming to the Soviets if the US was not focused on Germany? Without those 13 million pairs of winter boots, the Soviets would have been in much the same position as the Germans in concerns of boots, and without the trucks sent (3/4 of all Soviet trucks were made in the US and sent via Lend-Lease), the Soviet offensive would have floundered in White Russia in 1944.

It should be however noted that the lend-lease program had already been in operation for about six months before Pearl Harbour - thus why I stated "directly and officially interfering". I do not know exactly how the figures worked out for before and after the official entry of the US into the war, but I highly suspect the programme increased dramatically.

If Hitler was to win the Battle of the Atlantic and the US only entered into the war much later, if at all, then I can possibly envisage a successful occupation of the UK in maybe 44 or 45, provided that the war in the East goes more in favour of the Germans due to lack of supplies from the US supporting the Soviet Union. Such an occupation of the UK would have to be redrafted completely rather than relying on the Operation Sealion plans, and the Royal Navy would still be a major factor, unless they were so attrited away by losses in the Battle of the Atlantic.

The Battle of the Atlantic will be severely effected, since during 1942 it was only the power of American shipyards that kept the merchant navies afloat (And later, it was the American B-24 that closed the Air Gap). Without war, it is doubtful the USN would have taken a more proactive approach then they already were, and British losses wil continue to be far ahead of replacement without US Shipyards.
... problem with that is that America places all of its resources in destroying Japan's conquests... thus ending that threat possibly b4 actually defeating Germany, maybe winter 43..., and then the 6 months for declarations of war to be passed against germany, at which point germany still has russia on the eastern front, and harassing attacks from england... although odds are germany has consolidated its north africa front. so in either case, im still guessing 46 for the end of germany

... problem with that is that America places all of its resources in destroying Japan's conquests... thus ending that threat possibly b4 actually defeating Germany, maybe winter 43..., and then the 6 months for declarations of war to be passed against germany, at which point germany still has russia on the eastern front, and harassing attacks from england... although odds are germany has consolidated its north africa front. so in either case, im still guessing 46 for the end of germany

Except America's resources take time to develope, it isn't until 1945 that the economy is even in full war tilt (not that it didn't already exceed every other nation's before then). It will not even be until 1943 that new carriers will be coming online, and simply the logistics involved in the island hopping strategy (which might not be adopted if a Pacific First strategy comes) or basically any amphibious strategy require it to be plodding. So even with all resources against Japan, I still would imagine at the earliest a possible defeat of Japan by late '44, though considering this means there is no Atomic Bomb (one cheif motivator was to develope it before Germany, the Nazi's just happened to lose before it was complete), there will be a Home Island Invasion, so it could last well into '45.

It is doubtful the Axis can really hold out in North Africa, their supply situation was always against them, and the British had slowly but steadily been learning the tactics they needed to know, and were far better equipped and supplied, so it really is just a matter of time before that front collapses, it should have been abandoned after Alam Al Halfa I think.

Just a diclaimer, Hitler was insane and what he did was in no way justified. What follows is just an intellecual study.

Me and a freind frequently discuss the above question, and how this man so royally screwed up. He says the Hitler should have waited until 1942, giving him time to devolop jet fighters and nuclear weapons, and then invaded France and England Simaltaniously. He then should have invaded Russia in early March (key) with fully winterized troops and vehicles. He then would have pushed into Africa and the remainder of Asia, finishing off with Japan. He also believes that he could have pacified the US, thus being able to settle with 3 solid continets.

What do you think?

He should have made amends with Rommel and should not have wasted time in Yugoslavia before Operation Barbarossa.

Also he should have studied better at school.

He should have made amends with Rommel and should not have wasted time in Yugoslavia before Operation Barbarossa.

Also he should have studied better at school.

Amends with Rommel? Rommel did not become disillusioned until 1943, possibly 1942, and even then not seriously enough to consider insubordination. Hitler's refusal to allow him to retreat from El Alamein is what really got him cooking, but later on he lost a gambit when he recommended the German forces on Italy withdraw further North, than try to hold on in the South against the Salerno landings, Kesselring (his superior), and Hitler both advocated staying in the South, and the Winter Position proved to be a formidable foe that held the Allies up for sometime, this may have resotred some faith in Hitler for Rommel. But still, Rommel was not that great of anything above a divisional commander, he certainly was not another Manstein or Kesselring, I don't see how it could have changed the war.

The building of ships takes months, if not years.


German bombers did effectively annihilate Lower England, hence the problem. They couldn't reach upper England to take out their production of fighters. That, and not taking out those radars.


ships do not take months to make as in WW2 america was able to produce ships in days or weeks not months of years and also yes german bombers could easily reach the north of england...in the blitz they destoryed everything but 4 houses in a clydebank which is a town near me in the westcoast of scotland so if they can reach scotland then they could obviously get to north england

ships do not take months to make as in WW2 america was able to produce ships in days or weeks not months of years

Yes, things like Liberty ships, but Liberty ships are not very good for combat, things like cruisers and battleships take years, carriers either years or months, and destroyers months.

and also yes german bombers could easily reach the north of england...in the blitz they destoryed everything but 4 houses in a clydebank which is a town near me in the westcoast of scotland so if they can reach scotland then they could obviously get to north england

Except their fighter cover couldn't, so to do so would be absolute suicide against the RAF, hence the reason there never really was a great threat against anything North of London.

Except their fighter cover couldn't, so to do so would be absolute suicide against the RAF, hence the reason there never really was a great threat against anything North of London.

If they were able to wipe out an industrial town about 500 miles north of london i wouldnt really say that there was no threat...

Amends with Rommel? Rommel did not become disillusioned until 1943, possibly 1942, and even then not seriously enough to consider insubordination. Hitler's refusal to allow him to retreat from El Alamein is what really got him cooking, but later on he lost a gambit when he recommended the German forces on Italy withdraw further North, than try to hold on in the South against the Salerno landings, Kesselring (his superior), and Hitler both advocated staying in the South, and the Winter Position proved to be a formidable foe that held the Allies up for sometime, this may have resotred some faith in Hitler for Rommel. But still, Rommel was not that great of anything above a divisional commander, he certainly was not another Manstein or Kesselring, I don't see how it could have changed the war.

Rommel did brilliantly in Africa. The reason he lost is because Monty went in for mass attacks when he had the entire advantage. Monty never took a chance, Rommel was often forced to. Maybe he wasn't the best general, but he did the job he did well and after so long in Africa you can't expect him to be up on conflict in Italy.
Even so, the main point in making amends with Rommel later on would be the symbolism to other German leaders. Hitler shot himself in the foot too many times because he refused to listen. Had he been more willing to follow the advice of others then he would have fared better.

If they were able to wipe out an industrial town about 500 miles north of london i wouldnt really say that there was no threat...

Yes, but it only happened once.
Had they tried it multiple times then they would have soon found themselves up the creek without a fighter cover.

Yes, but it only happened once.
Had they tried it multiple times then they would have soon found themselves up the creek without a fighter cover.

they bombed many cities north of london and the bombers werent wiped out...Coventry,Plymouth,Manchester,Liverpool and several others were all bombed without much bother from the RAF

they bombed many cities north of london and the bombers werent wiped out...Coventry,Plymouth,Manchester,Liverpool and several others were all bombed without much bother from the RAF

But how many times and how much damage did they actually do to the war effort?
Most of the damage was done in the south.
And the once was referring to the attack on the Scottish place.

But how many times and how much damage did they actually do to the war effort?
Most of the damage was done in the south.
And the once was referring to the attack on the Scottish place.

well considering that the clyde area was and still is an important ship building area it did alot of damage to the war effort and clyde bank and the glasgow area were bombed quite alot but at night due to the fact the RAF didnt use planes at night to take down the bombers and used only AA guns

well considering that the clyde area was and still is an important ship building area it did alot of damage to the war effort and clyde bank and the glasgow area were bombed quite alot but at night due to the fact the RAF didnt use planes at night to take down the bombers and used only AA guns

It didn't stop them building there though like certain attacks on Dresden that we could mention.
It was a bugger, yes.
But it wasn't lethal.

And they couldn't use planes at that time as they might crash into each other and shoot the wrong people and all kinds of chaos.

i almost agree with the original comment except the idea of having a winternized force to invade Russia. That is a class mistake. In WWII Russia made good use of total warfare burning everything in order to leave no resources for nazi soldiers. Nazis would have been literally left out in the cold, no resources, weak morale, and an easy target to the cold adapted Russian troops. Just seems you are a little lost in this debate. :confused:

6) The Russian Partisan war was inevitable

I'd agree with everything else you said, but not this. The Germans were welcomed as liberators, especially in the Ukraine. If it hadn't been for their racial superiority drivel, they'd have had massive support in the occupied regions. As it was, they had Ukrainian troops, and some of the Partisans were hitting German and Russian troops as the mood took them.

Of course, they'd have still lost...

All of these suggestiona re plausible, but useless if you don't indicate what he should have cut back in order to free up the man power and resources to build and field them - otherwise you might as well just say 'have more of everything'. So, more submarines at the cost of less what? Focus on North Africa at the expense of where? Investigate the atomic bomb at the cost of not investigating what?

Focus on North Africa at the cost of Not invading the USSR right away.

Build more submarines, less surface ships. And once secure on the continent from British counter-invasion, shift armor production to the U-Boat.

With the nuke, general cuts across the board, and the 3 year delay in the start of the war, plus not scaring Jewish scientists out of Germany by not being anti-semitic helps too.

With the nuke, general cuts across the board, and the 3 year delay in the start of the war, plus not scaring Jewish scientists out of Germany by not being anti-semitic helps too.

In my opinion whether the Germans could have developed the bomb in a timeframe anywhere commensurate to that taken by the US is highly questionable - the US had the resource of not only their own and allied scientists to draw on, but also those who had feld occupied Europe. Certainly if Germany had not decided to persecute the Jewish ones and occupy the countries of some of the others they might have had a better knowledge base to work from, but I still think it wouldn't have lead to successful development within ten years.*



*Plucking a figure from my ass.

going back to the idea that Germany couldnt reach the north of the UK...Belfast was the second worst hit city in the air raids after London...because of Harland and Wolff shipyard and the Shorts aircraft factory. its considerably further than to the north of England, and they still got here quite a few times

I think Hitler should have honored his treaty with Stalin and tried very hard to avoid war with Russia. He should have left Britian and the US alone as much as possible and concentrated on Europe, the middle east and north Africa. If the Nazis managed to consolidate the EU, North Africa and the OPEC countries then the third reich could have lasted a thousand years.

...Belfast was the second worst hit city in the air raids after London...

No it wasn't. Have a look at Coventry. The blitzing of Belfast was minor compared to many towns or cities - there were only three nights of Luftwaffe bombing here.

He should have left Britian and the US alone as much as possible and concentrated on Europe, the middle east and north Africa. If the Nazis managed to consolidate the EU, North Africa and the OPEC countries then the third reich could have lasted a thousand years.

Question for you: who owned the North African and 'OPEC' countries during WWII?

Okay, well I decided to post again, I won't quote stuff from here as there are too many posts that need correcting out there. This thread is titled "should have done" when it should be titled "could have done". He should have done a lot of things, but that doesn't mean he could have done them. We can't just say "Hitler should have built the super bomber and bombed England with 20 nukes", when it's not possible to happen. So keep that in mind that we should be discussing what could have happened, and we could stop discussing the should and replacing it with could. Anyway on that.

I'll make a couple corrections. Hitler was presented with the idea for the atom bomb I believe either late 1941 or early 1942, give or take a few month, correct my year if it is wrong, let me know where you found the proper year, always love learning new things. He was already into the war when he was told about it, so he couldn't have just backed out and stopped, not with the mess he had started. That and the plans were presented to him stating it would likely take 5 years at least to produce a viable weapon. The resources that would have been needed to test, manufacture, and maneuver such a weapon would have been detrimental to his entire plan of invasion in Europe. The Atom Bomb was no easy feat, not in any way, not even for the US. We worked on it for a good portion of the war and used a lot of resources for it. But we had those resources handy, Hitler did not, well he could have managed it, but at the expense of his entire defense I'm sure.
Operation Sea Lion...Hitler original stated on July 16th, 1940 that he would plan an invasion of England due to their unwillingness to compromise (which by the way Hitler admired them for, regardless of the fact that they were enemies, he was once told in a meeting that the British were showing remarkable strength against him and he retorted (not exact quote) "Of course, they are a germanic people too!", interesting I think that he can respect and enemy :)...Hitler had a well thought at plan to take Britain in OSL, but unfortunately for him (fortunate for Britain), he never carried it out. He put it aside with the premise that bombing Britain continuously would cause them to eventually surrender. He was presented with the plan some time in 1940 I believe, though the ideas may have been sprung on him as early as mid 39, hard to say really, I'd have to read more on that. Point is, his plans of invasion in England would have functioned very well in the first two or three years of the war. He put it off a group of times in 1940 alone, his advisors brought it up with him a few times, but as I said, he wanted to bomb them to submission. His U-boats were devastating to the British Naval boats, so there would be little opposition to an invading force, he didn't need to worry about heavy air support as he could safely deal with the RAF with his own planes that were quite superior and getting ever more powerful as time progressed for his technological achievements. He really only had about a year and a half window to successfully put on the operation, but putting it off really gave Britain a head start in defending itself as best it could and alerting the public to potential invasion. There were a lot of mistakes he make with OSL, but oh well.
As for Russia, Hitler had this great idea that with his blitzkreig maneuver, he could safely disable Russia before winter came. It was a good idea, but he didn't anticipate the terrain nor the stubborness of the Russians at the time. He didn't intend to go into an all out winter war, but that's how it ended up, bad luck for him. Russia sustained nearly 7.5 million deaths throughout the entire war, I'm not sure what the exact toll was with the German invasion, but of the Allies, Russia took the biggest hit for troops, makes you really think about why Russia wanted the US to open up a second front for them. They were hurting!
Anyway for now...maybe I'll come back and bug all of you again unless I've annoyed people :P

I don't claim to know as much about military history as some of the people here, but I do think I know more than about 95% of the population.

It seems rather obious that hitler shouldn't have joined forces with Japan, that way he would've avoided conflict with the U.S. And he should've demolished Britain immeadiatly after defeating the French. This would leave him free to fortify the Atalntic and with two other options ahead.

The first would be to invade the USSR and after that major feat was accomplishd, take on asia if he pleased. The other option would be Africa. Britain had a 4 to 1 troop advantage over Hitler and Mussolini, but that wouldn't have been there had he taken care of Britain. He could've taken Africa easily. But one thing we must all remember during this discussion is that hindsight is 20/20.

...Hitler had a well thought at plan to take Britain in OSL,

Oh no he didn't.

Point is, his plans of invasion in England would have functioned very well in the first two or three years of the war. He put it off a group of times in 1940 alone, his advisors brought it up with him a few times, but as I said, he wanted to bomb them to submission. His U-boats were devastating to the British Naval boats,

Evidence? This is entirely contrary to everything I have heard.

so there would be little opposition to an invading force, he didn't need to worry about heavy air support as he could safely deal with the RAF with his own planes that were quite superior and getting ever more powerful as time progressed for his technological achievements.


Explain to me why the Battle of Britain was a failure then - it doesn't come down to just the decision to concentrate on bombing the cities. The radar net had a massive effect as did the fact that the RAF were fighting over home soil, and so were able to return downed pilots to action quickly and easily.


There were a lot of mistakes he make with OSL, but oh well.

So, where is he going to get the manpower? How is he going to get enough flat-bottomed shallow draft barges to transport them? What about the Royal Navy and RAF?

And he should've demolished Britain immeadiatly after defeating the French.

How?

This is one of the most interesting threads I've ever seen. However, there's not much I can say becuase everything I would say has already been said. But still, a great topic for discussion.

Remember, I have said that Hitler should have put off the war several years. (And not persecute the jews and the numerous other people who suffered because of the nazis)

Remember, I have said that Hitler should have put off the war several years. (And not persecute the jews and the numerous other people who suffered because of the nazis)

Hey, there's not much point in being Hitler if you don't get to persecute people. It's a bit like being Joe DiMaggio and not being allowed to play baseball or sleep with Marilyn Monroe.

He put it aside with the premise that bombing Britain continuously would cause them to eventually surrender. He was presented with the plan some time in 1940 I believe, though the ideas may have been sprung on him as early as mid 39, hard to say really, I'd have to read more on that.

The idea must not have sprung up anytime before 1940, as the Kreigsmarine and Heer were both completely unprepared for a cross-channel invasion.

Point is, his plans of invasion in England would have functioned very well in the first two or three years of the war.

No, they would not have functioned anytime past 1937, the latest time I can see him able to produce the machines needed for a seaborne invasion of Britain, anytime after that, and it's hopeless.

He put it off a group of times in 1940 alone, his advisors brought it up with him a few times, but as I said, he wanted to bomb them to submission. His U-boats were devastating to the British Naval boats,

His U-boats were devestating to British Merchant ships, British Warships were not quite as scared (not to say they weren't lost though), and the Channel is not exactly the safest place for U-boats to lurk, what with Coastal Command and the Channel Fleet. Throughout the war the Grand Fleet remained in being, and the Channel Fleet was ever present, if at times diminished.

so there would be little opposition to an invading force, he didn't need to worry about heavy air support as he could safely deal with the RAF with his own planes that were quite superior and getting ever more powerful as time progressed for his technological achievements.

???? Little opposition, the entire Royal Navy is against him, and all he has got is Rhine barges. His army cannot bring it's heavy equipment with it, and it has to land at a port (remember, no Higgins), it's not going to be France over again. Concerning Air Support, he veyr much has to worry, even assuming he can defeat the RAF in the BoB, they just retreat to Northern England, Scotland, and Wales, out of effective fighter range to rebuild their numbers and still harass the Germans. And the Luftwaffe began to fall progressively back in terms of technology against the RAF and USAAF after 1941.

He really only had about a year and a half window to successfully put on the operation, but putting it off really gave Britain a head start in defending itself as best it could and alerting the public to potential invasion.

He actually had about a weeklong window to do it in, since the Rhine barges were critical to industry in the Rhineland, now do you relaly expect him to be able to mass them, load them, then land them in a week?

As for Russia, Hitler had this great idea that with his blitzkreig maneuver, he could safely disable Russia before winter came. It was a good idea, but he didn't anticipate the terrain nor the stubborness of the Russians at the time.

Not all of his ideas were good though, instead of focusing on a single drive he went for all three, and he just had to divert forces from Army Group Center to aid in the Battle of Kiev, they could have been driving towards Moscow.

He didn't intend to go into an all out winter war, but that's how it ended up, bad luck for him. Russia sustained nearly 7.5 million deaths throughout the entire war, I'm not sure what the exact toll was with the German invasion, but of the Allies, Russia took the biggest hit for troops, makes you really think about why Russia wanted the US to open up a second front for them. They were hurting!

Russia took something like 12 million military deaths, adding in civilian deaths it comes up to 28 million, depending on how you attribute deaths to who, Russia and China come up on par for Allied casualties.

I don't claim to know as much about military history as some of the people here, but I do think I know more than about 95% of the population.

It seems rather obious that hitler shouldn't have joined forces with Japan, that way he would've avoided conflict with the U.S. And he should've demolished Britain immeadiatly after defeating the French. This would leave him free to fortify the Atalntic and with two other options ahead.

The first would be to invade the USSR and after that major feat was accomplishd, take on asia if he pleased. The other option would be Africa. Britain had a 4 to 1 troop advantage over Hitler and Mussolini, but that wouldn't have been there had he taken care of Britain. He could've taken Africa easily. But one thing we must all remember during this discussion is that hindsight is 20/20.

The US had a "pact" (I guess you could call it a pact, it was more like an agreement sort of thing) with Britain. Roosevelt agreed with Churchill in that should the US ever come into the war, the US would focus on the European theatre first. So if Japan wasn't in the whole deal, the US probably wouldn't have gotten involved for some time after. Who knows though. Japan was a relatively useful ally for a short period of time.
Operation Sea Lion unfortunately never took place because he kept pushing back the date his military commanders kept saying to launch the invasion. He had more than enough opportunities to invade England. I can't say for certain that he would have succeeded in fully defeating England, I'm sure he could successfully invade, stop their military, and assume control, but I doubt that every Englishman would just give up, they're a stubborn people :), which is good.
Troop advantage is useless if they can't get past the artillery and heavy weapons. Sort of like saying China has a high ratio in comparison to the US, but we also have a lot of really big bombs, so we could cut down the numbers. Speaking theoretically/hypothetically of course. The Tiger tanks and all his other weaponry his military either created, modified, or just plain stole were far superior at the time. But yeah...
He actually should have left the USSR alone altogether for a long period of time. He had Japan dealing with China, and rather well in a sort of overly violent way, he could have consumed Europe and rebuilt his forces and then decided if he could adequately deal with Russia. That would of course give Russia time to defend themselves, but under the guise of a "treaty" or "truce" it would give a sort of false reassurance. Who knows really how people would have reacted though in that time, I wasn't there lol.

Operation Sea Lion unfortunately never took place because he kept pushing back the date his military commanders kept saying to launch the invasion. He had more than enough opportunities to invade England.

Such as when (assuming that you mean opportunities which wouldn't have been pure folly)?

The idea must not have sprung up anytime before 1940, as the Kreigsmarine and Heer were both completely unprepared for a cross-channel invasion.



No, they would not have functioned anytime past 1937, the latest time I can see him able to produce the machines needed for a seaborne invasion of Britain, anytime after that, and it's hopeless.



His U-boats were devestating to British Merchant ships, British Warships were not quite as scared (not to say they weren't lost though), and the Channel is not exactly the safest place for U-boats to lurk, what with Coastal Command and the Channel Fleet. Throughout the war the Grand Fleet remained in being, and the Channel Fleet was ever present, if at times diminished.



???? Little opposition, the entire Royal Navy is against him, and all he has got is Rhine barges. His army cannot bring it's heavy equipment with it, and it has to land at a port (remember, no Higgins), it's not going to be France over again. Concerning Air Support, he veyr much has to worry, even assuming he can defeat the RAF in the BoB, they just retreat to Northern England, Scotland, and Wales, out of effective fighter range to rebuild their numbers and still harass the Germans. And the Luftwaffe began to fall progressively back in terms of technology against the RAF and USAAF after 1941.



He actually had about a weeklong window to do it in, since the Rhine barges were critical to industry in the Rhineland, now do you relaly expect him to be able to mass them, load them, then land them in a week?



Not all of his ideas were good though, instead of focusing on a single drive he went for all three, and he just had to divert forces from Army Group Center to aid in the Battle of Kiev, they could have been driving towards Moscow.



Russia took something like 12 million military deaths, adding in civilian deaths it comes up to 28 million, depending on how you attribute deaths to who, Russia and China come up on par for Allied casualties.

First, you are correct on the death tolls, was looking at a post war toll take right after the war ended when sufficient counts weren't entered, did a little research, was about 13.6 million military, 7.7 civilian. So a little over 21 million. China was 3.5 million military, 10 million civilian, these are rough numbers obviously, sorry for that, 7.5 just sounds nicer.

Well my evidence comes from a book on the subject by Peter Fleming calling "Operation Sea Lion" which outlines in the beginning the several times he was approached with it by his commanders, the resources available and his window of opportunity. He had more than enough time in the beginning of the war to secure an invasion in England, and every month he waited made it harder for him to win. Just because his armies weren't ready by 1940 doesn't mean he wasn't presented with the information.
Britain also didn't declare war on Germany until Sept. of 1939. Germany spent a hefty 12 weeks of nonstop preparation in 1940 to press on into England and if you get this book and see the maps you'll realize that a sea invasion was not the main means of attack. There were a lot of things going on and he failed to get to the deadline they had posed for him and it was brought on again later on and he threw it aside. Eventually his lack of action just screwed him out of an opportunity for complete consumption of Europe.
All I can say at this point is try to find this book.
Well surprisingly enough, after his first year or two of success, his ideas started to falter. You see a lot more failures from Hitler as the years progress, likely due to his trip into insanity, though I can't say for certain when that exactly started to happen. I hear a lot of things on this, personally I think was going overboard by the beginning of 1940...

Such as when (assuming that you mean opportunities which wouldn't have been pure folly)?

Huge window: May to September of 1940. Many many many opportunities there. That was the period when the invasion was thought to have a more successful run, but the again I can't really say that they would have won or lost, since I wasn't there and it never happened so I'm just falling on theory. For all I know the invasion could have failed miserably, but from what I've read it was thought out well. Understaffed a bit, yes, but then again, he never took the opportunity so it doesn't matter and we'll never know how well it would have really gone.

What hitler should have done....

Hmmn, i doubt "kill ALL the jews" is an acceptable answer.

Huge window: May to September of 1940.

Well up until June 1940 the invasion of France was pretty muchusing up all available manpower and hardware, as I understand it, so that seems impractical to me.

So basically you are suggesting he float roughly 100,000 exhausted fighting men across the English channel at some point between the start of July and the end of September in river barges and other civilian vessels without first tackling the RAF and the Royal Navy or coastal defenses?

Sombody said that if the Germans had pressed onto Dunkirk, they would have given the Weygand line time to prepare and then seem to get confused and talk about Arras.

I'd like to clear that up, Arras was peformed by a British Tank Force against SS-Totenkopf, which broke and ran (the first time Waffen-SS broke til 1943), this was only pyschological not material. Also remeber it was British forces that did this not French, the Germans had a lot of contempt for the French forces at this point, but still respected the British. The Weygand line WOULD not have held, given the extra time for preparation... Why? The French were not fighting a modern war, they were still fighting WWI at this point... also they had no military solution to Blitzkrieg... also French morale was rock bottom... against an almost invincible enemy why not?

Like I said before Hitler COULD NOT have invaded Britain successfully til much later... even discounting the RAF he had nothing to hold off the RN. His best hope for the Battle of the Navies was to massively expand Donitz's U-boat fleet and give Raeder more Bismark class Battleships/Surface Raiders...

Had Hitler put off the war for longer, I can tell you he would have it a lot harder especially in France, since the French would have fortified the Ardennes by then... or may well have done... and Soviet's would have had loads more troops organised and modern tanks/aircraft... so he did well to attack when he did, just he did a Stalin from Stalingrad onwards...

Britain had a 4 to 1 troop advantage over Hitler and Mussolini
He could've taken Africa easily.
Great Britain owned Africa in the 1940's, so to say something as uneducated as that after you just said Britain had a 4 to 1 troop advantage is damn stupid.

Well up until June 1940 the invasion of France was pretty muchusing up all available manpower and hardware, as I understand it, so that seems impractical to me.

So basically you are suggesting he float roughly 100,000 exhausted fighting men across the English channel at some point between the start of July and the end of September in river barges and other civilian vessels without first tackling the RAF and the Royal Navy or coastal defenses?

Paratroopers my friend. Paratroopers. Those were the main vessel of troops going in.
France signed an armistice with the Nazis on June 22, which ended that.
October 12, 1940 he postponed operation Sea Lion until 1941 (Spring)
Sept. 3, 1940 was the date he planned to invade. His window was, as I said, between May and September. And as I said he put it off. Anywho..

Like I said before Hitler COULD NOT have invaded Britain successfully til much later... even discounting the RAF he had nothing to hold off the RN. His best hope for the Battle of the Navies was to massively expand Donitz's U-boat fleet and give Raeder more Bismark class Battleships/Surface Raiders...
.

It would be impossible for Hitler to successfully invade England after 1941, since at the end of 41 the US was in the war. His options were limited to 40 and 41 and less likely to succeed in 41 than 40. A lot of intelligence was going around in the British government suggesting an invasion, notices were put out to civilians, often some of it was false, but still, they were suspecting the worst.
Bismark was actually a waste of resources for Germany. It cost them a lot of resources that could have been used for more efficient things. Sure, Bismark sunk the Hood and it took a huge section of the British navy to take it down, but once it was down, big waste. It took them too long to build it, too much resources to do so, and with Hitlers resources dwindling, to think of making a fleet of these things would have been mind boggling expensive and nearly impossible. It is possible the idea was presented to him, hell a lot of great ideas were taken to Hitler that he refused. Such as towards the end of the war (I watched this on the history channel and for the life of me I can't remember the dates) he gave funding to someone (I forget the name too) to design a bomber that could fly like a fighter. He ended up with a fighter than flew faster than any other plane there was at the time, but only a 100 or so were produced before Hitler shut the project down. Only a few of the planes actually saw action, some of which were flying around during D-day and Allied pilots said the things flew circles around them.

Well up until June 1940 the invasion of France was pretty muchusing up all available manpower and hardware, as I understand it, so that seems impractical to me.

So basically you are suggesting he float roughly 100,000 exhausted fighting men across the English channel at some point between the start of July and the end of September in river barges and other civilian vessels without first tackling the RAF and the Royal Navy or coastal defenses?

And to add, look at the list of attacks and surrenders from 1939 to 1941. I don't think tired was an issue for Hitler and it didn't seem to bother the troops one bit as they kept going and succeeding...

No it wasn't. Have a look at Coventry. The blitzing of Belfast was minor compared to many towns or cities - there were only three nights of Luftwaffe bombing here.
more people were killed in Belfast than in Coventry

more people were killed in Belfast than in Coventry


Coventry - 1,236

http://www.cwn.org.uk/heritage/blitz/

Belfast - roughly 900

various sources.

Paratroopers my friend. Paratroopers. Those were the main vessel of troops going in.

Funny how Hitler never mentions them in his plan then, isn't it?

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/proc/direct16.html

Kesselring may have advocated their use at one point, but this didn't become part of the plan.

Exactly when are the Germans going to find time to train something like 125,001* soldiers in the use of parachutes? Exactly how do you suggest to carry out mass para-drops when the British still have air-superiority? Exactly how do you intend to support and supply them, given that you now seem to be admitting that an amphibious invasion wouldn't have had much of a chance of success?

* Given that 90,000 men were intended t take part in the first wave, and then a second wave of 160,000: if most are to be paratroopers, then you need 125,001 Fallschirmjagers - this is roughly 6 times the amount that were able to be used in the taking of Crete in May 41.

Coventry - 1,236

http://www.cwn.org.uk/heritage/blitz/

Belfast - roughly 900

various sources.

meh, we had more killed in one night than coventry. but thats not the point, the point is that the Luftwaffe was capable of bombing that far north

Sombody said that if the Germans had pressed onto Dunkirk, they would have given the Weygand line time to prepare and then seem to get confused and talk about Arras.

You seem to have confused what I was saying, I was pointing out the Arras attack as an example of how overstretched the Germans felt, and how weary they were of stretching their forces even further. If you'll remember, they were quite scared by the Arras counterattack.

I'd like to clear that up, Arras was peformed by a British Tank Force against SS-Totenkopf, which broke and ran (the first time Waffen-SS broke til 1943), this was only pyschological not material.

I never claimed it was a major victory, just it's effect on the Germans.

Also remeber it was British forces that did this not French, the Germans had a lot of contempt for the French forces at this point, but still respected the British.

Probably becuase all the major French armoured forces were no where near the Germans in a spot quite as critical as Arras.

The Weygand line WOULD not have held, given the extra time for preparation... Why? The French were not fighting a modern war, they were still fighting WWI at this point... also they had no military solution to Blitzkrieg... also French morale was rock bottom... against an almost invincible enemy why not?

No military solution to the Blitzkreig? The Weygand Line was the military solution to the German Blitzkrieg of 1939. It envisioned forces continuing on to fight in nests even after surrounded, and striking out form these "nests" at the points where the panzers meet the infantry, their weakest point. This is exactly how you should deal with the German Blitzkreig warfare, the reason it collapsed so quickly was becuase of lack of manpower to effectively man these "nests" and inadequate time to prepare these "nests" (usually centered around a town, so basically a 1940 Bastogne). They were not fighting WWI at this point, they had rather quickly adapted to the new war, and their morale was not at a rock bottom, they were determined and pressing on.

Had Hitler put off the war for longer, I can tell you he would have it a lot harder especially in France, since the French would have fortified the Ardennes by then... or may well have done... and Soviet's would have had loads more troops organised and modern tanks/aircraft... so he did well to attack when he did, just he did a Stalin from Stalingrad onwards...

France had no plans to build fortifications against the Ardennes, but given more time, the Armee d'le Air would have been far more sophisticated (And flying something like the D.520 instead of the MS 406), and even more motorized and armoured divisions would have existed than did in 1939-40.

Funny how Hitler never mentions them in his plan then, isn't it?

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/proc/direct16.html

Kesselring may have advocated their use at one point, but this didn't become part of the plan.

Exactly when are the Germans going to find time to train something like 125,001* soldiers in the use of parachutes? Exactly how do you suggest to carry out mass para-drops when the British still have air-superiority? Exactly how do you intend to support and supply them, given that you now seem to be admitting that an amphibious invasion wouldn't have had much of a chance of success?

* Given that 90,000 men were intended t take part in the first wave, and then a second wave of 160,000: if most are to be paratroopers, then you need 125,001 Fallschirmjagers - this is roughly 6 times the amount that were able to be used in the taking of Crete in May 41.

I'll just quote some information for you about the airborne division for Germany...
"The Russian Army was the first in the world to train and equip troops for airborne operations; and in 1935, during autumn maneuvers in the Ukraine, foreign military attaches witnessed, much to their surprise, a parachute-drop in approximately battalion strength. The Red Army, whose battle honors had been largely won fighting against its own countrymen, had not at that time a high reputation; and the only nation to follow the Russian lead was Germany.
"The Germans formed two battalions of parachute troops, one belonging to the Luftwaffe, the other to the Army. The role of the Luftwaffe unit, as originally conceived, was to dot the i's and cross the t's after a bombing attack; it was recognised that, with the small bombs and rudimentary bomb-sights then in service, attacks on industrial plants and other installations would be hit-or-miss affairs, and it was for a time envisaged that parachute troops would usefully be dropped as saboteurs to complete the destruction of the target's vitals.
"In July of 1938 both battalions were placed under the command of Student, a Luftwaffe officer. He was told that they were to form the nucleus of the Flieger-Division which was to carry out a landing in rear of the powerful fortifications protecting Czhechoslovakia's frontiers in the Sudetenland. In October of the same year, after the Munich Agreement had postponed war at Chzechoslovakia's expense, the operation was done as an excercise. It took place near Freudental. The two parachute battalions were reinforced by one regiment of 22 Infantry Division, and the whole force was successfully landed in Junkers 52s before a small but influential military audience. Thereafter airborne operations were taken seriously by German General Staff." (evidence to state they had trained personel for paratroop missions prior to Operation Sea Lion, giving low numbers based on average battalion size and regiment size you end up with a little under 2600 troops, basing this off of Stephen Ambrose' book D-day which lists the sizes)
"The available numbers of transport aircraft (Junkers 52s, each carrying twenty men) and gliders were reported to OKH on 11 July as, respectively, 400 and 110. Five days later this total was stepped up to 1,000 aircraft and 150 gliders; only 75 percent of the aircraft were said to be operational." K, lets do a little math here. Gliders hold 8 men, Junkers hold 20. 75% of the Junkers were operation so we end up with 750 and 150. 16,200 men could be carried by this total at the time. "The German airborne potential must have increased to some extent in the few weeks that followed, but it was sharply reduced by Hitler's decision in late August to earmark 270 aircraft and one regiment of airborne troops for possible intervention in Rumania. These forces did not rever back to their original Sea Lion role until a very few days before the operration was cancelled. The figures suggest that if the parachute battalions had been able to capture and hold a landing ground, the Germans could have flown into south-eastern England a maximum assault force of 15,000 men, whose most serious weakness would have been their lack of artillery and vehicles. These they would not have recieved until a port had been captured as a result either of their own operations or of a seaborne assault, or (more probably) of both." "In the final plan for Operation Seal Lion, their roll was a straightforward tactical one, with dropping-zones in the immediate vicinity of the bridgeheads."
And..."The intervention of German airborne forces at various widely separated places in the Low Countries during the early hours of 10 May produced upon them (the British) an almost hypnotic effect. The unreasoning conviction that a horde (or more probably a number of small, desperate parties) of highly trained parachute troops, many of them wearing disguises of one kind or another, might be deposited by an air-fleet of limitless dimensions at any moment on any corner of the kingdom took firm root in the official and the public mind. Even when, three weeks later, the magnitude of the continental disaster had become apparent and every Channel port north of the Somme was in the enemy's hands, the airborne bogey continued to hold sway, and only very slowly yielded up part of its grip on men's imaginations to the ancient danger of invasion by sea.
"We expect to be attacked here ourselves, both from the air [i.e. by bombing] and by parachute and airborne troops, in the near future, and are getting ready for them", Churchill was writing to Roosevelt on 15 may.

Quotes from "Operation Sea Lion" by Peter Fleming, published by Simon and Schuster.

It still stands that even with paratroopers an invasion of England was unfeasible. Look at how the paratroopers performed on Crete, and they were more sophisticated and facing a less determined and numerous enemy then they would face on Britain. Without heavy support from heavier forces, which would have to cross the Channel somehow (a damn near impossibility at any time during WW2), the paratroopers will just be slaughtered. They performed well in the Low Countries becuase they were quickly supported, and not expected, a drop into Britain is against the main force of the RAF, and the British Home Army.

(evidence to state they had trained personel for paratroop missions prior to Operation Sea Lion, giving low numbers based on average battalion size and regiment size you end up with a little under 2600 troops, basing this off of Stephen Ambrose' book D-day which lists the sizes)

So there were approx. 2600 paratroops.

16,200 men could be carried by this total at the time. ..... The figures suggest that if the parachute battalions had been able to capture and hold a landing groudn, the Germans could have flown into south-eastern England a maximum assault force of 15,000 men, whose most serious weakness would have been their lack of artillery and vehicles.

There was air transport for 16,200 (at maximum) in the first wave.

Paratroopers my friend. Paratroopers. Those were the main vessel of troops going in.

16,200 + 2,600 is hardly the main anything when compared to the 71,200 that would form the rest of the first wave, but at least we are getting somewhere here - so the targets of the Fallscirmjager would be a landing ground and a beachhead. I will allow that both these operations could be possible, but there would be heavy losses inflicted by the RAF even before they reached their drop-zones.

That still leaves the tactical exercise of getting the other 70,000 men across the channel in civilian ships and Rhine barges when the British have been alerted to the attack and the Royal Navy is still operational, and the RAF would be somewhat weakened but also very much a threat.

So what we may very well have here is roughly 20,000 airborne troops stranded in the UK after a failed attempt to link with the amphibious assault, with only the supplies they can capture or manage to fly in past the RAF. I'll pull some numbers out of my ass here - a tenth destroyed by the RAF before landing, and then another tenth rendered unworthy for combat by the end of the first day, that leaves about 16,500. They would be troublesome, but I foresee a mass surrender of the airborne elements as the most likely result.

It still stands that even with paratroopers an invasion of England was unfeasible. Look at how the paratroopers performed on Crete, and they were more sophisticated and facing a less determined and numerous enemy then they would face on Britain. Without heavy support from heavier forces, which would have to cross the Channel somehow (a damn near impossibility at any time during WW2), the paratroopers will just be slaughtered. They performed well in the Low Countries becuase they were quickly supported, and not expected, a drop into Britain is against the main force of the RAF, and the British Home Army.

All I can say at this point is find this book and read it, otherwise I'll end up posting quote after quote until the entire book is written here in an attempt to educate...

All I can say at this point is find this book and read it, otherwise I'll end up posting quote after quote until the entire book is written here in an attempt to educate...

I prefer to go with the interpretation as outlined here:

http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

So there were approx. 2600 paratroops.



There was air transport for 16,200 (at maximum) in the first wave.



16,200 + 2,600 is hardly the main anything when compared to the 71,200 that would form the rest of the first wave, but at least we are getting somewhere here - so the targets of the Fallscirmjager would be a landing ground and a beachhead. I will allow that both these operations could be possible, but there would be heavy losses inflicted by the RAF even before they reached their drop-zones.

That still leaves the tactical exercise of getting the other 70,000 men across the channel in civilian ships and Rhine barges when the British have been alerted to the attack and the Royal Navy is still operational, and the RAF would be somewhat weakened but also very much a threat.

So what we may very well have here is roughly 20,000 airborne troops stranded in the UK after a failed attempt to link with the amphibious assault, with only the supplies they can capture or manage to fly in past the RAF. I'll pull some numbers out of my ass here - a tenth destroyed by the RAF before landing, and then another tenth rendered unworthy for combat by the end of the first day, that leaves about 16,500. They would be troublesome, but I foresee a mass surrender of the airborne elements as the most likely result.

Of course there will be losses, and as I keep saying to everyone here, get this book, it goes into a lot of detail on what Hitler's intentions were for the channel, etc etc etc. If he could have pulled it all off, he would have made a successful run into England, that is a big if, as his entire strategy relies on keeping the channel clear enough to get his barges through and the artillery to the banks. Regardless, England feared what could happen with an airborne invasion and significant damage could be done if enough troops managed to pull through. That and you could easily flash train paratroopers in a week or two, though preferably a months time would be more efficient. Anyway...

I prefer to go with the interpretation as outlined here:

http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

Not exactly the most concrete of places especially when it links an "alternate history" website. As far as I can see it doesn't list biobliographical sources, unless I missed it. Peter Fleming's book is an actual "history" book. It was written as a history of Operation Sea Lion based on diagrams, writings, actual history, etc etc etc. He cites a lot of sources and what not. But anyway, if you want to go the internet route, I'll stop arguing with you, no offence or anything.

. That and you could easily flash train paratroopers in a week or two, though preferably a months time would be more efficient. Anyway...

Once you start altering the ratio of paratroopers to water-carried troops you move away completely from the plan that Hitler gave for Operation Sealion: paras only played a very small part in that projected operation.


Asking whether Hitler could have invaded the UK in 1940 with a different plan and been successful is a very different question from asking whether Operation Sea Lion could have worked. I was under the impression that we were discussing the later question.

Not exactly the most concrete of places especially when it links an "alternate history" website.


I readily concede that, but it reflects many of the same conclusions which I have made regarding Operation Sea Lion from my own reading. I'm sure that the irony of condemning an alt-history website while discussing a question of alt-history on the internet doesn't escape you. Are there any glaring errors that you wish to correct there?


But anyway, if you want to go the internet route, I'll stop arguing with you, no offence or anything.


Lets see if we can agree on the basics here though:

1.) primarily an amphibious plan which depended on vessels of a very questionable seaworthy nature.
2.) the RAF still had air supremacy
3.) the RN still ruled the waves of the English Channel
4.) paratroops would be used but there was little or no thought given to how to supply them
5.) those troops and commanders who would be carried by barges had no experience of an amphibious landing

Once you start altering the ratio of paratroopers to water-carried troops you move away completely from the plan that Hitler gave for Operation Sealion: paras only played a very small part in that projected operation.


Asking whether Hitler could have invaded the UK in 1940 with a different plan and been successful is a very different question from asking whether Operation Sea Lion could have worked. I was under the impression that we were discussing the later question.

Oh I was arguing that Sea Lion could have worked. And I wouldn't say the Paras played a small role as a significant part of the mission relied on them to secure landing zones. If they failed the whole mission failed, but if you mean as far as size and what not, but yeah.

I readily concede that, but it reflects many of the same conclusions which I have made regarding Operation Sea Lion from my own reading. I'm sure that the irony of condemning an alt-history website while discussing a question of alt-history on the internet doesn't escape you. Are there any glaring errors that you wish to correct there?





Lets see if we can agree on the basics here though:

1.) primarily an amphibious plan which depended on vessels of a very questionable seaworthy nature.
2.) the RAF still had air supremacy
3.) the RN still ruled the waves of the English Channel
4.) paratroops would be used but there was little or no thought given to how to supply them
5.) those troops and commanders who would be carried by barges had no experience of an amphibious landing

I'm not condemning an alt-history site for the sake of alt-history, I'm saying if you are going to use evidence from such a source, it better have good resources to quote or it doesn't readily stand up to documented historical evidence. If we're discussing this as sheer alt-history and avoiding the actual historical basis, then by all means I would say "yes bring that alt-history site", but as I saw it we weren't arguing the alternate history of it (the coming up with your own idea for something that either could have or never would have happened), we were arguing the actual history, the facts. I apologize if my comment sounded rude and what not, but I wasn't willing to continue a historical context based argument if one party is going to use a work of fiction as evidence to support, just like if we were arguing about Bush and Kerry if all I had against Bush was something someone told me, that would be pointless to argue with someone, or vice versa. (People do do that though with Bush and Kerry, I don't know why...they do unfortunately).

Like I said just a post before, those sea based units would never see action if the paras failed to do their job. And as I keep saying, read this book as it talks about how Hitler planned to secure the channel, and I can't say for certain if his idea would work, it's possible sure, likely, probably not.
I think as far as supplying those troops, Hitler (and I speculate here) probably thought that if the Paras failed to secure landing zones, why bother giving them supplies? They'll lose anyway, it would be a waste, and alternately he might have thought, no point giving them supplies in the instance that they succeed and we get our troops over there.

Anywho....

If we're discussing this as sheer alt-history and avoiding the actual historical basis, then by all means I would say "yes bring that alt-history site", but as I saw it we weren't arguing the alternate history of it (the coming up with your own idea for something that either could have or never would have happened), we were arguing the actual history, the facts.

Ah, i think you may have misunderstood the context of that site somewhat - it is intended as an examination of whether the success of Operation Sea Lion as planned would have been possible, and as such an analysis of the quality of the plan. It is the result of various ongoing debates concerning the validity of using a successful OSL as a "point of departure" from actual history, rather than a flight of fantasy which includes other departures from our actual hsitory (thus no steam-powered land leviathans, and so on.

I apologize if my comment sounded rude and what not, but I wasn't willing to continue a historical context based argument if one party is going to use a work of fiction as evidence to support, just like if we were arguing about Bush and Kerry if all I had against Bush was something someone told me, that would be pointless to argue with someone, or vice versa. (People do do that though with Bush and Kerry, I don't know why...they do unfortunately).

I think you might want to have another look at the actual context of the site - it is hardly a work of fiction, but rather an examination of the actual plan. Have a look and see if you can find a fictitious element in it.

Like I said just a post before, those sea based units would never see action if the paras failed to do their job.

Well, this seems like a sensible decision until you realise that it means the either the amphibious units are launched prior to the paras securing their objective, and so may need to turn about mid-Channel, depite very primitive command and control systems being in place, or are launched after the objectives are held, which means the paras need to hold onto their objectives for twenty four hours, given how long the barges will take to arrive.


And as I keep saying, read this book as it talks about how Hitler planned to secure the channel, and I can't say for certain if his idea would work, it's possible sure, likely, probably not.

Could you in the meantime provide a rough outline of the major salient points in the plan to neutralise the RAF and the RN?

I think as far as supplying those troops, Hitler (and I speculate here) probably thought that if the Paras failed to secure landing zones, why bother giving them supplies?

I was actually talking about ammunition and immediate needs rather than food here - remember that the German doctrine was to drop with just pistols on the Fallshirmjager and their weapons and ammunition were dropped in separate supply pods from the same craft. Given that the troops will be dropped several hours away from their objectives in hostile territory I see an immediate problem here in lack of supplies should resistance be encountered.

Anywho....

Should we move on to a discussion of how likely the German invasion would be to succeed if by some miracle they managed to divert the RN and hold off the RAF long enough to make a beachhead? Remember that the tactics which had served them so well in the taking of France here can't be used due to the lack of mechanised and armoured units.

Oh I was arguing that Sea Lion could have worked. And I wouldn't say the Paras played a small role as a significant part of the mission relied on them to secure landing zones.

Then why the comment that they were the 'main vessel' going in? (I'm assuming this was intended to mean that they were the main body of troops or that the majority of troops would be transported by air, but this seems widely divergent to the actual OSL plans, and it may be that I have misinterpreted you.

This comment was made here:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7201222&postcount=173

And by 'landing zones' do you mean an amphibious beachhead or airfields?

Ah, i think you may have misunderstood the context of that site somewhat - it is intended as an examination of whether the success of Operation Sea Lion as planned would have been possible, and as such an analysis of the quality of the plan. It is the result of various ongoing debates concerning the validity of using a successful OSL as a "point of departure" from actual history, rather than a flight of fantasy which includes other departures from our actual hsitory (thus no steam-powered land leviathans, and so on.
I think you might want to have another look at the actual context of the site - it is hardly a work of fiction, but rather an examination of the actual plan. Have a look and see if you can find a fictitious element in it.
Well, this seems like a sensible decision until you realise that it means the either the amphibious units are launched prior to the paras securing their objective, and so may need to turn about mid-Channel, depite very primitive command and control systems being in place, or are launched after the objectives are held, which means the paras need to hold onto their objectives for twenty four hours, given how long the barges will take to arrive.
Could you in the meantime provide a rough outline of the major salient points in the plan to neutralise the RAF and the RN?
I was actually talking about ammunition and immediate needs rather than food here - remember that the German doctrine was to drop with just pistols on the Fallshirmjager and their weapons and ammunition were dropped in separate supply pods from the same craft. Given that the troops will be dropped several hours away from their objectives in hostile territory I see an immediate problem here in lack of supplies should resistance be encountered.
Should we move on to a discussion of how likely the German invasion would be to succeed if by some miracle they managed to divert the RN and hold off the RAF long enough to make a beachhead? Remember that the tactics which had served them so well in the taking of France here can't be used due to the lack of mechanised and armoured units.

It really doesn't matter if the website is basing anything on historical context, the fact is it is part of an alternate history ring and using it as a basis for argument in a historical argument where the other side is using an actual fact book on the subject is useless. You said it was part of a long discussion right? Go take a look at all the Bush vs Kerry forums going right now. They are all getting information from all sorts of sources, mostly bad sources, some good sources, and what does that make the discussion into? I long line of bad sourced material. You have to actually dig through it all to find the real stuff. Same goes here unless I some how missed a bibliography of sources that was there. Like I said, if we are discussing alternate history, fine, I wouldn't be using this book on OSL in such a historical argument, but more towards a what-if fiction argument. Not all alternate history involves advanced technologies or fantasy themes or anything like that. It's a list of discussions as you said and as I said that leads you in a dozen different directions of opinion, unless I am mistaken on something here.

Right, I would make the assumption the barges would be deployed some time after either a) reports were recieved stating that an objective was taken or b) after visual reports showed the objective complete. I would have to look that up to be sure.

Anyway, I'm not going to get into the RAF again, there was something floating around the board about that...

Then why the comment that they were the 'main vessel' going in? (I'm assuming this was intended to mean that they were the main body of troops or that the majority of troops would be transported by air, but this seems widely divergent to the actual OSL plans, and it may be that I have misinterpreted you.

This comment was made here:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7201222&postcount=173

And by 'landing zones' do you mean an amphibious beachhead or airfields?

They were the "main vessel" as I said. They were the one thing the entire project relied on. If they couldn't succeed in their mission, the entire mission would fail. They were to be the first to go in, the first to die, and the first to fail or succeed. I don't mean main body necessarily as far as size goes, just as I just said here. It is possible however that Hitler could have trained more for his army at the cost of some other issues he was dealing with that he should have let be. Anyway again...

The Germans weren't exactly overstretched, just like you said the High Command felt that way... Hitler kept thinking they were going to get Blitzkrieged back...

Probably becuase all the major French armoured forces were no where near the Germans in a spot quite as critical as Arras.

<--- That wouldn't haven't exactly mattered, the French armour was superior to the Germans own in many ways but it lacked tactics/concentration and discipline was the Germans had in abdunance... it was also still largely spread out amongst the French infantry at this point... what the Germans encountered at Arras was a decent concentration of armour, thus they had problems because they weren't used to this yet...

No military solution to the Blitzkreig? The Weygand Line was the military solution to the German Blitzkrieg of 1939. It envisioned forces continuing on to fight in nests even after surrounded, and striking out form these "nests" at the points where the panzers meet the infantry, their weakest point.

<--- there are many military solutions, but the Weygand line was a copy of the German 'West Wall' in concept, also the reason I say it would not have held was because although it may have had time, its troops had poor morale and lacked the leadership to stop something they saw almost as a bulldozer...

This is exactly how you should deal with the German Blitzkreig warfare, the reason it collapsed so quickly was becuase of lack of manpower to effectively man these "nests" and inadequate time to prepare these "nests" (usually centered around a town, so basically a 1940 Bastogne).

<--- The French would have given up very quickly in the majority of cases i'll wager...

They were not fighting WWI at this point, they had rather quickly adapted to the new war, and their morale was not at a rock bottom, they were determined and pressing on.

<---- really their high command was, their air force was adapting yes and would have matched the Luftwaffe given a few more weeks in the war. Their army was to a degree but still using oldish tactics, morale not rock bottom? In some units maybe, but from what i've read it indicates at the time of the Weygand line French troops weren't exactly lining up to fight the Panzergruppe's... They did try and form a tank division from what i remeber D'Gaulle being responsible I think... but generally the French had their tanks still in infantry support units...

France had no plans to build fortifications against the Ardennes, but given more time, the Armee d'le Air would have been far more sophisticated (And flying something like the D.520 instead of the MS 406), and even more motorized and armoured divisions would have existed than did in 1939-40

It was extending the Maginot line north to the Ardennes region, I was theorising that they would have extended it that far, they didn't get a chance in reality... The French didn't haven't armoured divisions on the whole, like I said the vast majority of their tanks even after Poland and up til near the peace treaty were deployed in infantry support...

The Germans weren't exactly overstretched, just like you said the High Command felt that way... Hitler kept thinking they were going to get Blitzkrieged back...

When thinking your overstretched means you have to stop your forces, it's just as bad as being overstretched.

<--- That wouldn't haven't exactly mattered, the French armour was superior to the Germans own in many ways but it lacked tactics/concentration and discipline was the Germans had in abdunance... it was also still largely spread out amongst the French infantry at this point... what the Germans encountered at Arras was a decent concentration of armour, thus they had problems because they weren't used to this yet...

The French did have concentrations of Armor, what about De Gualles attack on the Germans, which was carried out by a French armoured division. Though he was defeated it still put a scare in them almost as bad as Arras.

<--- there are many military solutions, but the Weygand line was a copy of the German 'West Wall' in concept, also the reason I say it would not have held was because although it may have had time, its troops had poor morale and lacked the leadership to stop something they saw almost as a bulldozer...

I never believed the Weygand Line could have held, just given more time, it would have held on longer than it did. From it's inception it lacked two things critical to a defense, AT Guns, the French did not have enough, and effective mobile forces that are meant to destroy the cut off armoured spearheads. Almost all of France's mobile forces were destroyed by the success of the German attack with the First Army.

<--- The French would have given up very quickly in the majority of cases i'll wager...

By looking at how stoutly the First Army fought on in Lille, I do not quite agree, they continued to try to reform themselves even on the Loire.

<---- really their high command was, their air force was adapting yes and would have matched the Luftwaffe given a few more weeks in the war. Their army was to a degree but still using oldish tactics, morale not rock bottom? In some units maybe, but from what i've read it indicates at the time of the Weygand line French troops weren't exactly lining up to fight the Panzergruppe's... They did try and form a tank division from what i remeber D'Gaulle being responsible I think... but generally the French had their tanks still in infantry support units...

They did not try and form a tank division, they had 7 of them to start with (They are called DCM and DLM, Division legere mechanise, and Division cuirasse mechanise, plus two other tank divisions still forming, which was what De Gualle's was). They had only about half of their tanks in penny packets with the infantry, the problem was all of them shoudl have been in armoured divisions.The only area of the French military still fighting World War I that I can agree with you on is their High Command. And no one lined up on the Weygand Line becuase it existed for barely a week befre it was penetrated.


It was extending the Maginot line north to the Ardennes region, I was theorising that they would have extended it that far, they didn't get a chance in reality... The French didn't haven't armoured divisions on the whole, like I said the vast majority of their tanks even after Poland and up til near the peace treaty were deployed in infantry support...

The Petit Maginot extended only to the very edge of the Ardennes, and was rather pitiful compared to the main Maginot. And only about half of their tanks were spent supporting infantry.

Sitzkrieng forever!

He should have made movies like those ones here:p

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=37606&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90

He should have made movies like those ones here:p

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=37606&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90


Hahahaha, great :D

Always Keep In Mind.....countries Do Not Have "friends"..they Have "interests"

Hitler only wanted Europe, he had no machinations on the lands of non whites, he also wanted an alliance with England, and had hoped for peace as late as a month before the war started.

Hitler had dreams of 'panzers rolling through Asia and into India'

Nothing to do with the fact that they were both nascent democracies, while England was still very much a monarchy?

France was a bigger monarchy then England. And the American Revolution is what inspired the French Revolution(except for the beheading thing, that was the french's brilliance).