NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently looked again at some articles on WWII and I find myself wondering why Hitler and his Nazi Germany lost. My opinion is as follows:
A. he betrayed Joseph Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union ( Dumbass )
B. he relied too heavily on the blitzkrieg; using short range bombers spearheaded by panzer divisions and infantry. Which by the way the Soviets, in their infinite resourcefulness, countered by dismantling their factories and moving them past the urals thus out of range of the junker bombers. And continued to pump out planes and tanks even after the major cities of western russia were bombed back to the stoneage.
C. Adolf Hitler called off the invasion of the British Islands, so he could stab Stalin in the back, and sent most of his troops ( more than a million, if I read correctly and several panzer divisions ) to Russia in operation Barborossa.
D. He failed to take the advise of his more experianced advisors and didn't bulk up his defences in France when they all new an allied invasion was inevitable; because allied confidence had been bolstered when Rommels Afrika Corp had taken losses at the hands of the Americans, British, and Australians.
These are just a few reasons.

I recently looked again at some articles on WWII and I find myself wondering why Hitler and his Nazi Germany lost. My opinion is as follows:
A. he betrayed Joseph Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union ( Dumbass )

I don't think the problem there was an invasion of the Soviet Union, it was an invasion of the Soviet Union at the wrong time of the year which didn't help him.

That is a good point. The russian winter fucked up Napoleans invasion too. but, the Soviet Union was a powerful ally, you dont invade and ally unless you know you can win. The Nazis thought they could win, they didn't know the could win.

D. He failed to take the advise of his more experianced advisors and didn't bulk up his defences in France when they all new an allied invasion was inevitable;

He did. The Atlantic Wall was damn near impregnable. There were many points in the Push for Berlin where the Allies nearly failed, because the Germans dug in and refused to move. Caen was 1 example, and so was Arnhem, but that was probably because of lack of co-ordination.

He could have invaded Britan and succeded. The English were about to crack when the bombing stopped. A better thing to do would have been to deal with Britan and make peace; so Hitler could put his full and undividedattention on the invasion of Russia. But no, Hitler in all his glory had to have all of Britan or none of it so he was divided on two fronts; exactly the same thing that may have been the cause for german defeat in the first world war.

you have to be a meglomaniac to try what hitler tried.

its hard for a meglomaniac to take the advice of others and to know when to stop.

if he had left the UK and USSR alone, he probably would have been able to keep the rest of europe (in concert with italy).

Hitler sent his best forces to die in the Soviet winter, to be bested by Russia's greatest general, while the cripples of the Eastern Front fought to the West.

The total lack of long range bombers didn't help Goering in world war two either, when the soviets moved their factories into the urals out of reach for nazi bombers.

Yes he would have kept his strangle hold on Europe if he would have left the ussr and the uk alone, then swept aside the pathetic countries of Africa. OR he could have taken them slowly one at a time on their own individual fronts then swept aside the countries of Africa.

he sent his best troops to Russia because he thought he could win. he had total confidence in his master race; he probably busted a vein when he lost his army at stalingrad opening the door for the Russian to give him one hell of a headache on the eastern front. In mien Kampf he expressed his hatred for the inferior slavic race, thats why he thought he could win. and the fact the russkies were totally outclassed by their german counterparts.

an Ecomony and Industry that wasnt suited for long drawn out wars and plus he rolled the way up to dunkirk and stopped and is eventual distrust of the Officer Corp

He could have invaded Britan and succeded. The English were about to crack when the bombing stopped. A better thing to do would have been to deal with Britan and make peace; so Hitler could put his full and undividedattention on the invasion of Russia. But no, Hitler in all his glory had to have all of Britan or none of it so he was divided on two fronts; exactly the same thing that may have been the cause for german defeat in the first world war.

Please.

Besides the German U-boat force the German navy was a total non-factor in the war, and where is your evidence that the English were about to crack. Churchill never said anything of the sort, and the Battle of Britain only served to strength England's resolve.

bullshit, he spent more than ten years preparing for the war. the economy could handle it. IF his resources had been more wisely distributed. Dunkirk was a mistake, he chased the brits into the sea from whence they came and stopped, he should have followed and steamrolled over britan when he was most likely to win.


but no, he had to be a dumbass. Hitler was a dumbass, I could do better and i'm not a military genius.

Hitler wasn't the best at planning.

Hitler could have been smart to let Japan attack Russia first. While that was happening, he could have dealt with the British Isles and moved onto Africa, and then through the Mid East.

were you there when england was being bombed, i my great grandfather still remembers the screams of children as the bombs exploded over their heads. and churchhill said nothing of english waning because at that time he thought he had roosevelts military support, though he was not sure. His face of confidence was a front, he was dieing inside at the thought of his country being coquered.

Please.

Besides the German U-boat force the German navy was a total non-factor in the war, and where is your evidence that the English were about to crack. Churchill never said anything of the sort, and the Battle of Britain only served to strength England's resolve.

Of course Churchhill never said anything of the sort! What kind of war leader tells his people publicly that they are going to lose, especially to an enemy he hated so greatly.

Hitler should have let japan attack first, to divert soviet attention. or he could have attacked at the same time. I wouldnt have attacked russia at all they were and ally, though they had different views they were still allies. Hitler should have stopped while he was ahead and rebuilt what had been lost in the previous theatres of combat.
killing eight million jews was a dipshit move too, millions more for your army and you kill them, how stupid do you have to be.

Hitler should have listened to his advisors and let them deal with the war. When German defeat was quickly closing in, instead of defending the fatherland at the sigfried line ( dont know how to spell it ) he sent troops out to try to take lost territory in the battle of the bulge when he lost, germany was done for.

Hitler could have been smart to let Japan attack Russia first. While that was happening, he could have dealt with the British Isles and moved onto Africa, and then through the Mid East.

There would have been very little point in Japan opening a major front against Russia, there is nothing of great value there to defend (at least not with the bulk of the Soviet forces). Besides Hitler could not rely on Stalin to maintain the non-aggression pact any longer than he needed to arm for the inevitable war, Hitler probably believed that if he struck the USSR quickly he could gain the upper hand.

I recently looked again at some articles on WWII and I find myself wondering why Hitler and his Nazi Germany lost. My opinion is as follows:
A. he betrayed Joseph Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union ( Dumbass )
B. he relied too heavily on the blitzkrieg; using short range bombers spearheaded by panzer divisions and infantry. Which by the way the Soviets, in their infinite resourcefulness, countered by dismantling their factories and moving them past the urals thus out of range of the junker bombers. And continued to pump out planes and tanks even after the major cities of western russia were bombed back to the stoneage.
C. Adolf Hitler called off the invasion of the British Islands, so he could stab Stalin in the back, and sent most of his troops ( more than a million, if I read correctly and several panzer divisions ) to Russia in operation Barborossa.
D. He failed to take the advise of his more experianced advisors and didn't bulk up his defences in France when they all new an allied invasion was inevitable; because allied confidence had been bolstered when Rommels Afrika Corp had taken losses at the hands of the Americans, British, and Australians.
These are just a few reasons.

lot's of things he should have done but the one that's most important...he fought a two front war-he should have finished england first and he would have likely won.....that and stayed out of the way of his generals, by far the best officer corps in the world, luckily for the world he thought he knew more than his generals....

Hitler could have been smart to let Japan attack Russia first. While that was happening, he could have dealt with the British Isles and moved onto Africa, and then through the Mid East.

Precisely how was he going to deal with the British Isles? Operation Sealion would have been a failure.

I sort of agree with prekkendoria myself, but hes wrong on one point their is something of value on the japanese front. OIL. the far east of russia and siberia have loads of it ( at least they did then, with the way oil prices are looking now they may be near dry ) besided Stalin was a dick and the loss of any land would have damaged his self-esteem:rolleyes: any loss of land for him was intolerabe, especially to a couple of japs.

Euphova, parts of your reasoning leaves out key facts:

1) Hitler hardly "betrayed" Russia. The only reason the two nations "allied" if you can call it that was to buy time. Hitler wanted to consolidate Europe and defeat France and the "low countries" first (Britain was also on that list but the battle of Britain failed). Stalin knew Russia wasn't ready for war with Germany and needed time to build up his armies.

2) Germany could never have persuaded Japan to invade Russia. Japan was only interested in conquering the Pacific. Not to mention the two nations had a long standing non-agression pact. Despite being allies, Germany and Japan did not work in close unison. Not to mention a large portion of the Japanese army was held up in China for most of the war.

2) Germany could never have persuaded Japan to invade Russia. Japan was only interested in conquering the Pacific. Not to mention the two nations had a long standing non-agression pact. Despite being allies, Germany and Japan did not work in close unison. Not to mention a large portion of the Japanese army was held up in China for most of the war.

Actually they both really hated the Soviet Union, hence the Anti-Comintern Pact.

once more im hearing bullshit. Operation Sealion would have succeded, if the RAF could be dealt with in a timely manner. All the luftwaffa needed was slightly better planes and Bye Bye england, but hilter thought he had more military smarts then his generals and ignore goering when he asked for new, better planes.
Good for you hitler, I hope your real proud of yourself you self-admirering retard.

Actually they both really hated the Soviet Union, hence the Anti-Comintern Pact.

True, but Japan was more concerned with its Pacific empire. It needed rubber and other resources to get the ball rolling.

I don't think the problem there was an invasion of the Soviet Union, it was an invasion of the Soviet Union at the wrong time of the year which didn't help him.



I believe he almost beat the soviet union and if he waited until the right time he would have beat them.

yes yes I know. I've read Mien Kompf, war with russia was inevitable but he went about it all wrong. he went straight for the jugular of russian ( its weapons plants ) and didn't succede, because of his lack of good long range bombers to chase the russians into the urals, so he took it out on the russian population. sending someones people to deathcamps can cause most people to get angry.
sometimes a war of attrision can work. ebb away at them then tear them apart.

or hitler could have not signed the non-aggresion pact with russia and invaded the Soviet Union after kicking polands ass. then after that he could have turned full circle and shoved a boot up frances and britans ass. bam two problems solved no more commies and you rule europe. after conquering the balkens of cource.

I sort of agree with prekkendoria myself, but hes wrong on one point their is something of value on the japanese front. OIL. the far east of russia and siberia have loads of it ( at least they did then, with the way oil prices are looking now they may be near dry ) besided Stalin was a dick and the loss of any land would have damaged his self-esteem:rolleyes: any loss of land for him was intolerabe, especially to a couple of japs.

Although Stalin would undoubtedly have been enraged at the loss of land and probably would have responded to save face, the point I'm making is that it would have been relatively inconsequential compared to the battle that had to take place in west Russia.

I sort of agree with prekkendoria myself, but hes wrong on one point their is something of value on the japanese front. OIL. the far east of russia and siberia have loads of it ( at least they did then, with the way oil prices are looking now they may be near dry ) besided Stalin was a dick and the loss of any land would have damaged his self-esteem:rolleyes: any loss of land for him was intolerabe, especially to a couple of japs.


You do realise that the Japanese had previously defeated the Russians in war right?

Oh Eris..... hypothetical war scenarios.

The funnest thing on the net.

C. Adolf Hitler called off the invasion of the British Islands, so he could stab Stalin in the back, and sent most of his troops ( more than a million, if I read correctly and several panzer divisions ) to Russia in operation Barborossa.


That is the most important reason IMO, as it gave britian a good amount of time to prepare an attack.

You do realise that the Japanese had previously defeated the Russians in war right?

Very different circumstances though.

One word that sums up the defeat of Nazi Germany:

Stalingrad

Hitler moved the 6th army into the city, which was destroyed with ease by a pincer movement by Zhukov and the Red Army (a strategy he learnt from the Nazis further north) but then he took the 3rd army away from their march towards the Caucaus oil fields. Lightly protected and easily captured had the 3rd army had continuted to advance. This would have cut of 85% of the Red Armys fuel supply, making them nothing more than rock-hurling partisans within a month. However Hitler, like the bollocks he was, thought that if Stalingrad fell, the Soviet Union wud surrender cuz a city with their "Glorious Leader's" name upon it had fallen, then all was lost. It was Hitler's ego which lost him WW2

You do realise that the Japanese had previously defeated the Russians in war right?

That Russia had not undergone a military and industrial transformation at the hands of Stalin and Co.

very true. I doubt hitler would have beat the Soviet Union. he was high on his own shit, master race this, master race that, the germans didnt have the manpower the russians had. He shouldn't have fucked with the russians. Actually i dont think anyone who ever invaded russia succeded. Hitler should sit down and read a history book or two.

That Russia had not undergone a military and industrial transformation at the hands of Stalin and Co.

The point I'm trying to make is that "especially to a couple of Japs" is not an argument. "Especially to a couple of Formosians" maybe...

Russia is at its weakest in the east so, no it does not surprise me the japs beat the russians previosly. but that was very different from the type of warfare in WWII

very true. I doubt hitler would have beat the Soviet Union. he was high on his own shit, master race this, master race that, the germans didnt have the manpower the russians had. He shouldn't have fucked with the russians. Actually i dont think anyone who ever invaded russia succeded. Hitler should sit down and read a history book or two.

He'd just have gotten demoralized seeing so many German defeats in the recent history before WW2...wud have him all depressed....well more than he was

by couple i meant millions, I didnt think I would have to clarify that point.

the defeat of the Afrika corp is really surprising. they wooped the brits and would have easily defeated the african nations. but lack of supplies ( once again hitlers fault ) killed rommel

very true. I doubt hitler would have beat the Soviet Union. he was high on his own shit, master race this, master race that, the germans didnt have the manpower the russians had. He shouldn't have fucked with the russians. Actually i dont think anyone who ever invaded russia succeded. Hitler should sit down and read a history book or two.

The only group to ever successfully invade Russia was the Mongols, who won on having some of the best tactics in existance and their habit of fielding an army of several hundred thousand warriors.

the defeat of the Afrika corp is really surprising. they wooped the brits and would have easily defeated the african nations. but lack of supplies ( once again hitlers fault ) killed rommel

Very true....Mackie and Sons Ltd. Belfast kept the Brits supplied...every shell that defeated the Afrikakorps came from there. If only there had've been a Belfast in Nazi Germany, maybe they wudda won! Africa was also the only fully Allied (British Empire mainly) victory after the defeat at Dunkirk before the Americans arrived from the other side of the Atlantic and attacked France.

America should have allied with Germany, different political views maybe; but american supplies and pilots are the only things that kept england afloat. America could have gained lots of territory without fear of germany. we were more industrialized then germany anyway. new territory, protection, strong ally, destruction of an economical competitor. good game plan.

the mongles kicked everyones ass, they could have eaten hot meals in the ruins of paris if they wanted to. they had europe on the edge. all they had to do was act like they were going to attack and european monarchs shit themselves.

America should have allied with Germany, different political views maybe; but american supplies and pilots are the only things that kept england afloat. America could have gained lots of territory without fear of germany. we were more industrialized then germany anyway. new territory, protection, strong ally, destruction of an economical competitor. good game plan.

You jest right? Would you be happy if all of Europe lay under the 3rd Reich, with tyrrany, oppression of the media, free speech religion, civil and political rights, just for a bit of self-security! The reason you didnt join those Nazi Bastards was to defend the rights of the individual....if the administration of the time thought that way, they might as well have allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War....a mad suggestion, and rather offensive to those who fought and died defending the world (America Included!) from Fascism!

America should have allied with Germany, different political views maybe; but american supplies and pilots are the only things that kept england afloat. America could have gained lots of territory without fear of germany. we were more industrialized then germany anyway. new territory, protection, strong ally, destruction of an economical competitor. good game plan.

The US was too much of a threat, Hitler would have ultimately attacked them. Also, idiologies were very important to him and the USA were not very keen on Nazi Germany anyway.

The US was too much of a threat, Hitler would have ultimately attacked them. Also, idiologies were very important to him and the USA were not very keen on Nazi Germany anyway.

The leaders in the USA, perhaps, but a sickening percentage of the population supported what Hitler was doing.

not everyone of the third riech thought as hitler did. Hitler was a jackass. and america at the time as a bunch of imperialist assholes. they would have had no problem siding with Hitler. I meant no offence to those who fought for our country against germany, they wouldn't have had to if we would have not declared war. Japan was totally called for though, they attacked first.
The cold war is totally unrelated, it was a battle of egos between the two most powerful nations in the world.

anyone ever heard of the neo-nazis, more than 80% of the population in america at the time were racist pricks. America would have felt right at home when facist laws were passed dividing the population once more.

The leaders in the USA, perhaps, but a sickening percentage of the population supported what Hitler was doing.

However it is the leaders who decide policy, and the fact that Hitler regarded the US as too much of a threat still stands. He was happier allied with other fascist governments.

thats because hitler was RETARDED he would rather side with weaker countries with similar ideologies *Italy* then to side with a very powerful country, that if persuaded the right way, would have jumped in and got right to the asskicking.

anyone ever heard of the neo-nazis, more than 80% of the population in america at the time were racist pricks. America would have felt right at home when facist laws were passed dividing the population once more.


I doubt that, can you prove that many americans were like that or is that a number you pulled out of your ass?

leaders dicide policy but, correct me if im wrong, the people elect the leaders.

thats because hitler was RETARDED he would rather side with weaker countries with similar ideologies *Italy* then to side with a very powerful country, that if persuaded the right way, would have jumped in and got right to the asskicking.

How much do you think the US would have done. It has (and had) a history of only acting in its own, local and immediate, interests.

leaders dicide policy but, correct me if im wrong, the people elect the leaders.


Then the leaders lie to the people.

leaders dicide policy but, correct me if im wrong, the people elect the leaders.

Only if the leaders let them.

everybody is a racist whether they let it be known or not, there is always a person or group you dont particulary like, and then it was the jews and blacks, i mean we fucking put the japs in camps to keep them from spying and no one said a damn thing.

everybody is a racist whether they let it be known or not, there is always a person or group you dont particulary like, and then it was the jews and blacks, i mean we fucking put the japs in camps to keep them from spying and no one said a damn thing.

Yes, everybody will have prejudices, its human. However whether or not you act on them is what matters.

Now could we get back to the debate, perhaps?

Do you honestly think the USA and Nazi Germany were really compatable?

just that, america would have done what ever it wanted without fear of german retaliation, and if it allied with germany the last democractic nation in europe would have fallen. Then America and Germany would have went on merrily until the eventual war between us and them. we would kick their ass because our economy is stronger and we would have done what hilter couldnt do, rule the world, or at least the better parts of it.

for a time, when their political and military interests were similar, yes they would have worked together fine. If they didn't interfere too much with each other.

Although I believe the defeat of Nazi Germany was a foregone conclusion before the first unit crossed the Polish border, I enjoy a good 'what if' scenario...

Time. Hitler didn't plan on entering open conflict until '43 or '44, I believe. His early successes in the whole appeasement process had swollen his head, so he hurried his plans and went for Poland. Mistake. Those four or five years would have paid big, big dividends.

In that time, he could have amassed more stockpiles of material, and further bolstered his forces, especially Germany's forces at sea. Doenitz{?} wolfpack tactics were unbelievably effective as it was. With the U-boat fleets given more attention and support, Allied shipping would have suffered even more terribly. England could NOT have kept afloat without those constant convoys of suppies from it's holdings abroad and America.

The bomber problem has already been discussed so I won't revisit, but I agree with it.

The panzer corps were held too long in reserve during the allied Normandy landings. The European wall was a poor idea, to begin with, but a swift counter-stroke with armored divisions would have seen the Allies driven back into the sea in a few day's hard fighting, or at the least would have given time to bolster forces inland until more strength was gathered for a counter attack. Instead, Hitler kept those key divisions under his personal control and, in exchange for having caught a few extra hour's sleep, let the Allies snatch a landing on him.

And finally: Franco's Spain. Hitler should have courted and courted the attention of Spain. I never really understood why the other fascist power in Europe never did... anything except provide the Luftwaffe with a 'scrimmage' before the big game. Instead of Franco dicking around on the Iberian, he should have been siezing Gibraltar and aiding in North Africa and western Europe.

But, that is all a huge 'what if'. Besides Germany's lack of enough supplies to keep their great war machine going, there was no real chance of a cross-channel invasion, in reality. Goering had already convinced Hitler that bombing them into submission was the key, and England would have fought on, even under occupation. Unlike France, they had holdings abroad that could have sustained the Empire until America's entry into the conflict, which was inevitable.

Bam.

thank You Pantera. You Got The Point Across In On Swift Stroke.

Pantera you are a fucking genius. I agree with everything you say. Hitler was bullheaded and a dipshit.

just that, america would have done what ever it wanted without fear of german retaliation, and if it allied with germany the last democractic nation in europe would have fallen. Then America and Germany would have went on merrily until the eventual war between us and them. we would kick their ass because our economy is stronger and we would have done what hilter couldnt do, rule the world, or at least the better parts of it.

OK:rolleyes:

America would have done next to nothing until it was attacked, disregarding the rest of the world, as always.

Great Britain may have lost to Germany, but would have given them hell before the fall.

The war between Germany and the US would have come very quickly, quite possibly with a Japanese assault from the west at the same time. The US pacific fleet may well not have been so lucky and Nazi Europe could have boasted a formidable economy and military that you underestimate.

As for the USA ruling the world, lets look at its most recent attempt at imperialism, and how badly that has failed.

all except the fact that france didn't resist occupation. they fought on so much so that hitler briefly considered destroying paris to get rid of the headache it was giving him.

either that, or the war between nazi europe and the United States would have been a M.U.D. conflict and the world would decend into anarchy and turmoil. as for the german economy, i don't care. its not as good as ours.

war would have been enveitable, both sides would take heavy losses, either one side would succede over the other or both would fall. a simple case of overblown egos. sounds like little bit like the cold war to me, only different contenders

Hitler didn't plan on entering open conflict until '43 or '44, I believe. His early successes in the whole appeasement process had swollen his head, so he hurried his plans and went for Poland. Mistake. Those four or five years would have paid big, big dividends.

I agree except in that both Britian and France were remilitarising at the same time, having seen the growing German war machine and Hitlers will to use it. The payoff for waiting would have been substantial, but not so much as you say. As for him hurrying when he went for Poland, I agree he rushed, but Hitler had no real reason to think that Britain or France would react any differently than they had with Austria, the Rhineland or Czechoslovakia.

OK:rolleyes:

America would have done next to nothing until it was attacked, disregarding the rest of the world, as always.



Well I don't know if you have heard the story of the USS Reuben James, in short it was a US destroy sunk by a U-boat before the US went to war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_%28DD-245%29).

either that, or the war between nazi europe and the United States would have been a M.U.D. conflict and the world would decend into anarchy and turmoil. as for the german economy, i don't care. its not as good as ours.

war would have been enveitable, both sides would take heavy losses, either one side would succede over the other or both would fall. a simple case of overblown egos. sounds like little bit like the cold war to me, only different contenders

Cold war is largely reliant on at least the weaker side having WMDs, if not there would just be border skirmishes but little ground gained or lost (like WW1).

Saying 'i don't care. its not as good as ours.' does not suddenly make the argument go away. Give me some reasons.

Finally, when you say 'M.U.D' do you mean 'M.A.D'?

just that, america would have done what ever it wanted without fear of german retaliation, and if it allied with germany the last democractic nation in europe would have fallen.

What, Ireland?

Well I don't know if you have heard the story of the USS Reuben James, in short it was a US destroy sunk by a U-boat before the US went to war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_%28DD-245%29).

Thats the point I was making, it takes the bombing of Pearl Harbour or the sinking of the Lusitania to actually get the US to do something.

Thats the point I was making, it takes the bombing of Pearl Harbour or the sinking of the Lusitania to actually get the US to do something.

The US was already doing things: the Lend-Lease operation was already begun and it was escorting convoys half-way across the Atlantic to the UK and USSR prior to Pearl Harbor. American neutrality really existed only in name alone.

The US was already doing things: the Lend-Lease operation was already begun and it was escorting convoys half-way across the Atlantic to the UK and USSR prior to Pearl Harbor. American neutrality really existed only in name alone.

True, but it really takes something for troops to be deployed, as for taking convoys half-way, it was the less dangerous half, crawling with fewer subs. And this policy of supporting Britain was only in place because of US the leadership, popular support was more divided.

yes i meant M.A.D.
Germany should have used diplomacy more than military might. the world feared them; with the right amount of pressure they could have gotten what the wanted.

Ireland was in constant upheaval at the time and though the irish deny it, they rely heavily on british aid. No england, no ireland.

I think hitler's greatest mistake was the manner in which he set out aquiring oil. The practical reason for invading Russia was to take over the Baku Oil Fields so that the Panzers and Luftwaffe weren't constantly running on fumes.
However, Hitler could have gotten oil and postponed conflict with Russia if he had invaded the middle east, starting with Turkey.
Iraq had a pro-German government in the first place, and Hitler would have found it easy to exploit anti-British sentiments amongst the Arabs in general, simply because they were mostly sick of British imperialism (especially Iran, as was shown in the '50s, when they kicked out the Anglo-Iranian oil company in favor of a nationalized industry).
With the oil of the middle east in his clutches, Hitler could have maximized the potential of the Luftwaffe and his armor divisions, and there is really no reason to believe the Soviets could have stood against him at this point. With the Soviets knocked out, Hitler could have simply overwhelmed the British with the Luftwaffe's now-infinite sortie flying potential and, eventually, his blitzkrieg tactics. If the Americans even entered the war at this point, they would face an enemy superior in the air and in the way of armor. It would be a long, hard war, and I would seriously question whether or not the Americans could unilaterally pull it off.
So, if Hitler wanted to win, his hit list in 1941 should have read, IMO:
1.Middle East
2.Russia
3.Britain
4.America

we have more resouces then germany. oil, man power, mighty industy that is not ran on the backs of starving jews and so called inferior races. And our military leaders have their say in combat theatres.
Hilter and his advisors ran the german economy like the soviet ran their command economy.
Capatilism kicks socialist and facist ass everytime.

yes i meant M.A.D.
Germany should have used diplomacy more than military might. the world feared them; with the right amount of pressure they could have gotten what the wanted.

Ireland was in constant upheaval at the time and though the irish deny it, they rely heavily on british aid. No england, no ireland.

Hitler did use diplomacy, he used it well. He was feared, and his country pitied, he played on this and it allowed him to Anschluss, to establish a military border in the Rhineland, and to claim the Sudeten land and for there to invade parts of Czechoslovakia.

he didn't use it enough; he could have dealt with stalin diferently when he saw operation barborossa was a failure, though how much diffence it would have made is unknown, and britan was weak and ready for a deal.
Hilter was deadset on the ideal of his book and wasn't going to change them come hell or high water.

Hilter and his advisors ran the german economy like the soviet ran their command economy.
Capatilism kicks socialist and facist ass everytime.

Although I agree with the capitalism versus socialism idea, a state controlled economy is not invariably a bad thing. It does allow the state to sieze what it needs when it needs it. The problem is that it eliminates motivation for exellence and in the long-run means that international competition is difficult. Even so, in many ways the system is well suited to war (War Communism did a very good job). The German economy was no more built on the backs of starved Jews than the wheels of capitalism being oiled by the blood of the workers.
As for the military leadership, that was more a problem with the people in command than the system itself.

Ireland was in constant upheaval at the time and though the irish deny it, they rely heavily on british aid. No england, no ireland.

Are you claiming that during WWII Ireland was receiving financial aid from the rest of the UK above and beyond conventional trade?

sure command economy is well suited or war, and we have a similar system called mobilization, but their is still internal compitition between companies vieing for the military contracts. that is why the U.S. military is always in the lead.
prime example f/22 raptor best fighter jet in the world, and the only fighter jet that can remain at supersonic speeds without burning all its fuel in a few minutes.
the soviet union tried to make its economy a little more leniet, maybe give a few social freedoms. then bam lights out, 1991 the soviet union is gone.

he didn't use it enough; he could have dealt with stalin diferently when he saw operation barborossa was a failure, though how much diffence it would have made is unknown, and britan was weak and ready for a deal.
Hilter was deadset on the ideal of his book and wasn't going to change them come hell or high water.

How would you have dealt with it? By the time Hitler could see he was beaten, so could Stalin and Stalin had lives to throw away and eastern Europe to conquer. By that time Britain had US support and Churchhill would not have negotiated with Germany under almost any circumstances.
His belief in his books are why he would not have allied with the USA for any length of time.

yes i am, the irish are ungrateful bastards. they may not need it now, but they did then. Political unrest had left the country stagnet. they would still be part of britan if the british hadn't persecuted the catholics and tried to press the angelican church of England on them.

that is why the U.S. military is always in the lead.

No, the reason the US military is the best equipped is because they pour ungodly sums into their armed forces. Its a shame they cannot bring up the level of training to reflect those armaments.

yes i am, the irish are ungrateful bastards. they may not need it now, but they did then.

What? Care to provide evidence for this financial aid?

if hitler had died in the assanination attempt. world war two would have ended differently. his military staff sided with his beliefs because if they didn't their future was very bleak indeed.
Nazi generals knew a war with the Uk the US and the USSR spelled defeat thats why they tried to kill him.
If i had been hitler i wouldn't have betrayed stalins trust, i would have kicked englands ass, and i would have sided with the U.S. when it declared war on Japan gaining a powerful ally and getting free rein in europe and Africa, then after the dust settled if Stalin attacked i would have been ready and i would have kicked his ass.

If i had been hitler i wouldn't have betrayed stalins trust, i would have kicked englands ass...

Yes, but how?

well for one they couldn't get anything done because of the conflict between the irish free state and the irish republican army, even after the civil war. and the fact that ww 2 happend so soon after the storm had left. Ireland needed finiacial aid to rebuilt itself, the relationship may have been a little icy but britan was in no shape to turn down a potential ally, it was already alone as it was. Now though Ireland can stand proud because like japan is had an economic revival ( because of the help recieved from the UK and US ).
Japan by the way was also aided by the US in rebuilding its economy.

if hitler had died in the assanination attempt. world war two would have ended differently. his military staff sided with his beliefs because if they didn't their future was very bleak indeed.
Nazi generals knew a war with the Uk the US and the USSR spelled defeat thats why they tried to kill him.
If i had been hitler i wouldn't have betrayed stalins trust, i would have kicked englands ass, and i would have sided with the U.S. when it declared war on Japan gaining a powerful ally and getting free rein in europe and Africa, then after the dust settled if Stalin attacked i would have been ready and i would have kicked his ass.

Then you would not have been Hitler really.

Hitler did not betray Stalin's trust, the agreement was made by both sides simply to buy time for armament, Stalin expected an attack eventually and Hitler would have seen one coming in the near future.

Hitler would not have allied with the US, I'll say it again. Even if you had tried the US administration would have strongly objected to the agreement and made terms that would have limited Germany (and probably protected Britain).
Why attack Japan? Its on the other side of Asia and how would an unprovoked assault on a far off military power serve anyone. Actually this sounds like Hitler style planning. 'Lets launch an attack on Japan for no reason from Germany because we have no closer staging point, and damn the logistics to hell.'

by following through with operation sealion and paying attention when my generals pointed out an error in my stategic planning. that in may have been his biggest mistake; he may have had generals but they might as well have nto been there for all they done.

well for one they couldn't get anything done because of the conflict between the irish free state and the irish republican army, even after the civil war. and the fact that ww 2 happend so soon after the storm had left. Ireland needed finiacial aid to rebuilt itself, the relationship may have been a little icy but britan was in no shape to turn down a potential ally, it was already alone as it was.


Firstly, learn how to use the QUOTE function. It will make life much easier for all of us.

Secondly, you have spectacularly failed to provide any evidence of any financial aid from the UK to Ireland during WWII

if hitler had died in the assanination attempt. world war two would have ended differently. his military staff sided with his beliefs because if they didn't their future was very bleak indeed.
Nazi generals knew a war with the Uk the US and the USSR spelled defeat thats why they tried to kill him.
If i had been hitler i wouldn't have betrayed stalins trust, i would have kicked englands ass, and i would have sided with the U.S. when it declared war on Japan gaining a powerful ally and getting free rein in europe and Africa, then after the dust settled if Stalin attacked i would have been ready and i would have kicked his ass.

If if if... wow, hindsight is a wonderful thing, ain`t it? Well, let me put it this way, Operation Sealion, the version that was planned by Berlin, would not have worked. No way, no how. Sure, the Luftwaffe could paste the RAF, and might well have had if the BOB went on longer, but a cross channel invasion was unlikely. More likely, if the Germans had concentrated on the North African front, and tried to enforce the Italian push into Egypt in 1940 with a few armoured divisons, they could have maybe reached Cairo, and perhaps from there the Suez, and with that, the Brits may actually sue for peace, unless you believe all of that Churchill-brand cock and bluster.

The long and short of it, the things you say you would`ve done in Adolf Hitlers` place, declare war on Japan, not invade the USSR... unlikely in the extreme, I doubt that a very many minority groups, chiefly the Jewish community, in the USA would accept the fact that it would be, technically or otherwise, allies in the fight against Japan.

Now, if you really want to get into the ' Hitler could have won the war if only he had... ' department, during the autumn of 1941, Fast Heinz himself, Generaloberst Heinz Guderian, had what amounted to, a free run to Moscow. Very few Soviet forces were present between his postion and the Soviet capitol, and he would have had a very real chance at taking the city before winter set in, but instead, he was ordered to turn south, for Kiev. Had he not been, with Moscow gone, the USSR would have encountered a massive setback, facing extremely dire circumstances in the year 1942, if not outright collapse.

So there you go, no totally implausible ' if I were Hitler I would`ve... ' nonsense. Oh, yes, and since you seem to have no idea of the various Anglo-Irish conflicts, their respective histories of interaction and all that, I`ll let the 'ungrateful bastards' remark go, but just this once, kay? ;)

by following through with operation sealion and paying attention when my generals pointed out an error in my stategic planning. that in may have been his biggest mistake; he may have had generals but they might as well have nto been there for all they done.

So, you've just lost the Battle of Britain, and now you plan to sail hundreds of thousands of men and horses onto the shores of England via shallow-draft barges. The Royal Navy and the RAF may have something to say about that.

Have you actually looked at the logistics of Operation Sealion? Even if we exclude the RN and RAF from the equation the whole thing is still so badly planned that it qualifies as little more than a pipedream.

i didn't say attack japan i said side with the US in its war with Japan. which by the way we did with britan in WWII ever heard of the lend-lease act, we aided Britan and France against germany without actually attacking germany. and since I would have aided the US against japan i would have gained their trust. Who would you choose, an old doomed ally or a new strong ally that was in a position to aid you. Hmm.
And by the way i said i would eventually kick russia's ass, and if my maps are right, then eastern russia should be somewhere around japan.

in one of my earlier posts i clearly said that if germany had put more money into designing better planes, like goering wanted, then the RAF would have lost. leaving the airspace over the English channel.
the RN have lost their prize ship " Hood". sunk by the german battleship Bismarck.
so the RN's moral is down, and in case you didn't know ships are very vulnerable to attack from the air, and since the nazis now have air superiority bye to the RN. after all this the logistics of operation sealion seem better than if used previously without the defeat of the RAF and the RN.

i didn't say attack japan i said side with the US in its war with Japan. which by the way we did with britan in WWII ever heard of the lend-lease act, we aided Britan and France against germany without actually attacking germany. and since I would have aided the US against japan i would have gained their trust. Who would you choose, an old doomed ally or a new strong ally that was in a position to aid you. Hmm.
And by the way i said i would eventually kick russia's ass, and if my maps are right, then eastern russia should be somewhere around japan.

But you are screwing up the timeline. You cannot not go to war with the USSR and then expect the US to still be at war with Japan. The US would not have needed the help Nazi Germany could have offered for a war in the Pacific. They would still not trust you, especially given how unreliable your deals have been in the past, the fact that you are fascist and your pet genocide. If you did not go to war with the USSR at the time Hitler did then you would have been faced with a stronger, better armed Soviet Union and there is no realistic way that you could have fought and won across all of the USSR and established a staging ground for an overseas attack in time to be any help.

in one of my earlier posts i clearly said that if germany had put more money into designing better planes, like goering wanted, then the RAF would have lost.

It wasn't a case of the better planes winning the Battle of Britain - heck, the workhorse for the RAF was the Hurricane, and its only real advantage was that it was really quick and easy to repair. You are ignoring four major things: the battle was fought primarily over British territory, and so the RAF could recover their own downed planes and pilots and return them quickly to the fray, whereas the Luftwaffe planes and pilots were out of the war, secondly, RDF, thirdly, the orders given for close escort of the bombers, thus wasting any advantages in speed or maneuverability that Luftwaffe craft may have had, and fourthly, the switch from targetting aerodromes to bombing the cities.

i didn't say attack japan i said side with the US in its war with Japan. which by the way we did with britan in WWII ever heard of the lend-lease act, we aided Britan and France against germany without actually attacking germany.

Are you now claiming that the lend-lease act was in operation before the fall of France?

Hitler lost the war becauce of he bloated confidence. He didn't follow through with his plans,and he chose badly in who to ally with, italy surrendered leaving hitler with even more vulnerable territory to defend he didnt listen to sound advise and sue for peace when defeat was around the corner. because of him germany was reduced to ruins and a black mark on germanys reputation.

Are you now claiming that the lend-lease act was in operation before the fall of France?

I'm beginning to tink he/she doesn't observe the laws of time like we do.

I'm beginning to tink he/she doesn't observe the laws of time like we do.

I weep for the state of history teaching in the USA.

most of my opinions are based on reletives who fought on both the german side of the war and on the allied side of the war. so my opions are unconventional.

most of my opinions are based on reletives who fought on both the german side of the war and on the allied side of the war. so my opions are unconventional.

The problem is that your dates, and assessment of logistics are wrong. Assuming that if you decide to do something it will happen, no matter the circumstances was part of the trap Hitler fell into. Plans rarely last the first engagement, let alone the war.

[QUOTE=Euphavova;12126856] he didnt listen to sound advise and sue for peace when defeat was around the corner.QUOTE]

Ahem, never heard of the Tehran Conference? Uncle Joe, Churchy and FDR agreed on a little something called, 'unconditional surrender ' as the only way the Axis powers would be allowed peace...

most of my opinions are based on reletives who fought on both the german side of the war and on the allied side of the war. so my opions are unconventional.

you have offered some valid points; but you need to get your facts straight before you begin argueing with them.

Plans rarely last the first engagement, let alone the war.
Though to be fair, one of the main reasons the Wehrmacht was so successful was that it followed precisely that doctrine (linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics)), and used improvised solutions to great effect.

Of course, when silly orders start coming from above and remove the element of personal on-the-ground judgement, there's trouble.

As for Sealion...if there was a chance of it working, it would've had to be done quickly (too quickly, really) when the British forces weren't ready yet. I don't think the Home Guard was much of an obstacle, but resupplied regular forces would've been.

The whole problem with hitlers war, was that he smuggly took on the world, which out numbered him by the billions. Then brushed off the advise of his military tacticians.

I recently looked again at some articles on WWII and I find myself wondering why Hitler and his Nazi Germany lost. My opinion is as follows:
A. he betrayed Joseph Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union ( Dumbass )
B. he relied too heavily on the blitzkrieg; using short range bombers spearheaded by panzer divisions and infantry. Which by the way the Soviets, in their infinite resourcefulness, countered by dismantling their factories and moving them past the urals thus out of range of the junker bombers. And continued to pump out planes and tanks even after the major cities of western russia were bombed back to the stoneage.
C. Adolf Hitler called off the invasion of the British Islands, so he could stab Stalin in the back, and sent most of his troops ( more than a million, if I read correctly and several panzer divisions ) to Russia in operation Barborossa.
D. He failed to take the advise of his more experianced advisors and didn't bulk up his defences in France when they all new an allied invasion was inevitable; because allied confidence had been bolstered when Rommels Afrika Corp had taken losses at the hands of the Americans, British, and Australians.
These are just a few reasons.

He thought he'd lost air superiority over the channel, so turned his attention to the Eastern Front, where his army, consisting mainly of conscripts, was soundly walloped.

Boylsica, you're endearingly simplistic.

I recently looked again at some articles on WWII and I find myself wondering why Hitler and his Nazi Germany lost. My opinion is as follows:
A. he betrayed Joseph Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union ( Dumbass )
B. he relied too heavily on the blitzkrieg; using short range bombers spearheaded by panzer divisions and infantry. Which by the way the Soviets, in their infinite resourcefulness, countered by dismantling their factories and moving them past the urals thus out of range of the junker bombers. And continued to pump out planes and tanks even after the major cities of western russia were bombed back to the stoneage.
C. Adolf Hitler called off the invasion of the British Islands, so he could stab Stalin in the back, and sent most of his troops ( more than a million, if I read correctly and several panzer divisions ) to Russia in operation Barborossa.
D. He failed to take the advise of his more experianced advisors and didn't bulk up his defences in France when they all new an allied invasion was inevitable; because allied confidence had been bolstered when Rommels Afrika Corp had taken losses at the hands of the Americans, British, and Australians.
These are just a few reasons.

all these things are true, but the way you argued your point slowly went over the deep end and you started making no sense. Any drugs your taking please mail me some it sounds like some good shit to make you type the crap that followed this.

He thought he'd lost air superiority over the channel, so turned his attention to the Eastern Front, where his army, consisting mainly of conscripts, was soundly walloped.

Boylsica, you're endearingly simplistic.

how am I endearingly simplistic?

Dunkirk was a mistake, he chased the brits into the sea from whence they came and stopped, he should have followed

In what? Fishing boats?

I do believe Euphavova has stopped to look at some books about world war two, seeing as there has been no reply for several minutes. Or typing more poorly argued bullshit.

how am I endearingly simplistic?

Because much of the world wavered before opposing Hitler, the US, much of South America and the United Kingdom included.

Much of the world supported Hitler too, and many of them remained neutral. Oddly enough, the European countries that did not immediately or eventually oppose Hitler were generally the ones with a large Catholic majority.

Because much of the world wavered before opposing Hitler, the US, much of South America and the United Kingdom included.

Much of the world supported Hitler too, and many of them remained neutral. Oddly enough, the European countries that did not immediately or eventually oppose Hitler were generally the ones with a large Catholic majority.

What do you expect. Hitler cut a deal with the Catholic Church. No interferance with the Church and a Catholic endorsement.

I think Catholics have an innate predisposition to Fascism. Something to do with automatic acceptance of infallibility and alien episcopal rule?

It's interesting that the 'Irish Freedom Fighters' of the seventies and eighties were so happy to submit to foreign domination from Rome.

I've heard that the Pope at the time blessed German tanks fighting in the Eastern front against the "atheist Communists".

There is also a Vatican document, that forbid anyone to assist a Communist in any way. If i find it on Google i'll post it.

I do believe Euphavova has stopped to look at some books about world war two, seeing as there has been no reply for several minutes. Or typing more poorly argued bullshit.

I reckon it's well past his bedtime, or he's busy watching his DVD of Pearl Harbour for more misinformation.

I reckon it's well past his bedtime, or he's busy watching his DVD of Pearl Harbour for more misinformation.

Now why would you bring bedtime into this?

:D probably, or he's crying to his mommy about how he was burned on the internet. And now everyone knows he's not as smart as he thinks he is!

Jeez, you're a bunch of aggressive newbies, aren't ya? :p

Jeez, you're a bunch of aggressive newbies, aren't ya? :p

I'm not, I was actually debating.

Now why would you bring bedtime into this?

Seemed an appropriate issue to bring up, given his child-like reasoning ability, and apparent belief that warfare is just a board game with very big pieces.

Seemed an appropriate issue to bring up, given his child-like reasoning ability, and apparent belief that warfare is just a board game with very big pieces.

The size differs based on the size of the force. And state your argument before attacking him/her.

Seemed an appropriate issue to bring up, given his child-like reasoning ability, and apparent belief that warfare is just a board game with very big pieces.

he had several very good points but he cracked under oppisition and began ranting bullshit that I can't get straight. I'm sitting at my desk with my old history book trying to sort this shit out.

I recently looked again at some articles on WWII and I find myself wondering why Hitler and his Nazi Germany lost. My opinion is as follows:
A. he betrayed Joseph Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union ( Dumbass )
B. he relied too heavily on the blitzkrieg; using short range bombers spearheaded by panzer divisions and infantry. Which by the way the Soviets, in their infinite resourcefulness, countered by dismantling their factories and moving them past the urals thus out of range of the junker bombers. And continued to pump out planes and tanks even after the major cities of western russia were bombed back to the stoneage.
C. Adolf Hitler called off the invasion of the British Islands, so he could stab Stalin in the back, and sent most of his troops ( more than a million, if I read correctly and several panzer divisions ) to Russia in operation Barborossa.
D. He failed to take the advise of his more experianced advisors and didn't bulk up his defences in France when they all new an allied invasion was inevitable; because allied confidence had been bolstered when Rommels Afrika Corp had taken losses at the hands of the Americans, British, and Australians.
These are just a few reasons.
Lets see, where to start..

A. Stalin would have invaded Hitler without hesitation if he got the chance, in fact there are things that point to him having been preparing to do just that when Hitler invaded.
B. Dude, Blitzkrieg works, simple as that. It isn't perfect, especially when such huge distances as are found in Russia are involved, but it is still one of the better tactics of the day. The Luftwaffe's lack of a long range bomber is a entirely seperate issue (and the blame lies with Goering, not Hitler)
C. The chances of Sealion being anything other than a failiure in 1940 were slim, at best. The Germans were trying to invade accross one of the worst sealanes they could find (the channel), in winter time. Look at what nearly happened to Overlord, when a major storm hit their harbours after the invasion. The threat of that happening gets far greater the later in the year it gets, and this would have been in mid september, at best.
D. Two words: Operation Bagration. Simply put, after that disaster (and loss of the entire army group center) he had no reserves to send, anywhere. Also he had, in fact, re enforced the Western front at the expense of the Eastern one, a large part of the reason why the German forces suffered so heavily in the east in 44.

Also would you guys stop bashing the Italians, please? Considering how out of date their equipment was, and how hide bound, and inept, their high command was, they did superbly, but, as usual, the Germans took all the credit, while the allies refused to admit being defeated by the same enemy they defeated so easily in 1940 (the Italian army in north africa in 42 was a very different, and considerably better, one than it was in 1940)

A few things on how 'I' (If I was an evil heartless bastard) could have done it.)

1.Bully Spain into joining the Axis powers.
2.Invade Poland in 1940.
3. Do away with death camps, besides being downright evil, was a horrible waste of resources. Better choice would be to sort all the 'undesirables' into boats and send them across the channel. England would either have to take them all in, while searching for hidden troops, or kill them all and do the genocide themselves.
4. Build an eastern defense line as well as a western defense line.
5. Leave Russia alone until spring of 42.
6. Telling Goering to stuff it and help the navy build the Graf Zepplin
(German Aircraft Carrier).
7. Once the Panther Design was found, it would be mass produced as the main tank design only.
8. Make the Alpine Redoubt something that's actually scary.
9. Leave a skeletion garrison in Norway.
10. Send military designs to Japan.

Actually... Not even bothering really. He had a country that worshipped him, why waste it.

he had several very good points but he cracked under oppisition and began ranting bullshit that I can't get straight. I'm sitting at my desk with my old history book trying to sort this shit out.

Don't try, he has his events order mixed up and does not seem to connect the three major theatres of war that the debate involved. He also clung to tightly to his gun, as it were, sometimes refusing to abandon a point even if it harmed his agrument.

Don't try, he has his events order mixed up and does not seem to connect the three major theatres of war that the debate involved. He also clung to tightly to his gun, as it were, sometimes refusing to abandon a point even if it harmed his agrument.

I have been trying to peel away from my history book, but I find it amazing someone who started out good could fuck up this bad. How could you stand to read this shit.
Ow, ow , migrane is sinking in. Risisting temptation to find this asshole and kill him befoe he submits more bullshit.

I have been trying to peel away from my history book, but I find it amazing someone who started out good could fuck up this bad. How could you stand to read this shit.
Ow, ow , migrane is sinking in. Risisting temptation to find this asshole and kill him befoe he submits more bullshit.

Well the first step to tolerating it is to focus on how you are gonna make him pay for saying it. Also were exactly do you think he went wrong? Personally I thought it was once he got started on the superiority of capitalism, but...
Still, he lost, as he should have (his arguments did fall apart).

The size differs based on the size of the force. And state your argument before attacking him/her.

Already did, thanks. Well... I raised one very basic issue with a claim that he'd relied on a few times. Frankly, he didn't make any response so I didn't feel the need to address anything else he'd said. Particularly as others were doing it for me and not getting sensible replies.
Is that really bad netiqette, then? I'm new to this, and in any case I've spent the last few hours in dealing-with-motorbike mode.

Bolysica, I'm not convinced he did make any very good points. I don't feel he cracked under pressure, I think the cracks in his argument appeared under pressure.

I'm not convinced he did make any very good points. I don't feel he cracked under pressure, I think the cracks in his argument appeared under pressure.

His origional points were correct and valid. It was just his personal twist that was later added that caused the collapse of his side. In fact I think we origionally agreed with each other.

Well the first step to tolerating it is to focus on how you are gonna make him pay for saying it. Also were exactly do you think he went wrong? Personally I thought it was once he got started on the superiority of capitalism, but...
Still, he lost, as he should have (his arguments did fall apart).

he fucked up when he tried to bend time at his whim, so as to make his argument work better. He also messed up BAD when he said America and Germany could have allied in a war against japan:confused:

A few things on how 'I' (If I was an evil heartless bastard) could have done it.)

1.Bully Spain into joining the Axis powers.
2.Invade Poland in 1940.
3. Do away with death camps, besides being downright evil, was a horrible waste of resources. Better choice would be to sort all the 'undesirables' into boats and send them across the channel. England would either have to take them all in, while searching for hidden troops, or kill them all and do the genocide themselves.
4. Build an eastern defense line as well as a western defense line.
5. Leave Russia alone until spring of 42.
6. Telling Goering to stuff it and help the navy build the Graf Zepplin
(German Aircraft Carrier).
7. Once the Panther Design was found, it would be mass produced as the main tank design only.
8. Make the Alpine Redoubt something that's actually scary.
9. Leave a skeletion garrison in Norway.
10. Send military designs to Japan.

Actually... Not even bothering really. He had a country that worshipped him, why waste it.
1. Unlikely to happen. Spain was still recovering from it's civil war, and probably would have just told him to shove it.
2. Make it 1942, and I'll agree with you.
3. How about just keeping them? There have to be quite a few males of a usefull age among them, so why give up a part of your possible conscripts?
4. Waste of cash, both of them. (and yes, they did intend to build a "East Wall", centered on the Dnieper)
5. Bad idea. The Soviets would have eaten the German army alive if he had done that. He should have left them alone, period, and made sure that Uncle Joe did not stab him in the back.
6. Personally I would just have had that fat b****rd shot..But that's my answer to such complete and utter incompetence..
7. The Panther didn't start design till after the Germans ran into the T-34, therefore: no Barbarossa=no Panther
8. Agreed
9. see above
10. Why? It is not as if the Japanese gave him anything in return..

Also the Japanese were burned themselves by the Soviets in 1939 (right on the eve of the war, in fact), and had no wish to have a re match..The Soviet general in charge of that army should be familiar..It was Georgi Zhukov.

he fucked up when he tried to bend time at his whim, so as to make his argument work better. He also messed up BAD when he said America and Germany could have allied in a war against japan:confused:

I think he just did not know the relevant dates (or the web address of wiki).

His origional points were correct and valid. It was just his personal twist that was later added that caused the collapse of his side. In fact I think we origionally agreed with each other.

I read some of the beginning arguments, you did agree with each other. Until he warped view of the war caused him to be beaten into submission. I think thats why he isn't replying. Personlly I would still be trying to defend my position.

I think he just did not know the relevant dates (or the web address of wiki).

He knows his stuff, at least some of it. And he tried to make up for his ignorance by posting stuff that you and I know could never happen.

EX.
alliance between Hitler and America

I read some of the beginning arguments, you did agree with each other. Until he warped view of the war caused him to be beaten into submission. I think thats why he isn't replying. Personlly I would still be trying to defend my position.

True he did stop abruptly, but people have other commitments. Personally I to would have stayed if I was getting beaten. But then I rarely get a thorough beating (like that) if only because it is immensly annoying to find ones argument abandoned midway.

He knows his stuff, at least some of it. And he tried to make up for his ignorance by posting stuff that you and I know could never happen.

EX.
alliance between Hitler and America

I wasn't saying it was all wrong, but his reinventing history bit was. As for the alliance, it would not have been impossible, but probably shortlived.

True he did stop abruptly, but people have other commitments. Personally I to would have stayed if I was getting beaten. But then I rarely get a thorough beating (like that) if only because it is immensly annoying to find ones argument abandoned midway.

don't worry, I don't think he's done yet, as soon as we all log off he'll be back to post more shit without facing brutal oppisition to his twisted views of the world.

don't worry, I don't think he's done yet, as soon as we all log off he'll be back to post more shit without facing brutal oppisition to his twisted views of the world.

If he was going to, he would start another thread, another day. No one would take him seriously if they took the time to read some (apart from the very beginning) of the rest of the thread. Besides ignorance is a fairly good excuse, hopefully he learnt something during this.

His origional points were correct and valid. It was just his personal twist that was later added that caused the collapse of his side. In fact I think we origionally agreed with each other.

Okay, so you agreed with him. That doesn't make him right.

A is debateable, given that war with Russia was inevitable - for ideological and strategic reasons, I'd say it was.
B is an odd point, since he doesn't offer an alternative tactic.
C is hard to back up, and he failed to do so when challenged. He seemed to think that US pilots won the Battle of Britain, and that Hitler could get an army across the Channel by sheer willpower.
D. Hitler was fighting a war on two fronts. Seeing as he ended up losing on both, it seems silly to criticise his use of resources. He is correct that Hitler was guilty of ignoring his advisors at critical times.

If he was going to, he would start another thread, another day. No one would take him seriously if they took the time to read some (apart from the very beginning) of the rest of the thread. Besides ignorance is a fairly good excuse, hopefully he learnt something during this.

hopefully he did. But for some people there is just no hope. Maybe he just got mixed up somewhere. I dont even know who he is talking to half the time.

Yes he would have kept his strangle hold on Europe if he would have left the ussr and the uk alone, then swept aside the pathetic countries of Africa. OR he could have taken them slowly one at a time on their own individual fronts then swept aside the countries of Africa.

At the time of world war 2 africa wasn't full of "pathetic countries". Other then Liberia and Ethiopia the rest of africa was either a colony of the various world powers at the time (Italy, France, British Empire etc). Or they were allied with a major power, such as South Africa being allied with the UK. So there wasn't much to invade in africa if he didn't attack his allies or England's allies.

Okay, so you agreed with him. That doesn't make him right.

A is debateable, given that war with Russia was inevitable - for ideological and strategic reasons, I'd say it was.
B is an odd point, since he doesn't offer an alternative tactic.
C is hard to back up, and he failed to do so when challenged. He seemed to think that US pilots won the Battle of Britain, and that Hitler could get an army across the Channel by sheer willpower.
D. Hitler was fighting a war on two fronts. Seeing as he ended up losing on both, it seems silly to criticise his use of resources. He is correct that Hitler was guilty of ignoring his advisors at critical times.

I'm not saying that war with the USSR could have been avoided (check my arguments), just that invading in the Russian winter is suicide.
Blitzkreig was an effective tactic, but it was not enough alone. The Schlieffen Plan (similar in purpose and concept) failed to halt WW1.
Sending troops to the eastern front for the invasion was a mistake, and pushing into Britain would have made sense. Unfortunatly we had the RAF.
Why not critisise his use of resources? Hitler should have thrown weight at one objective at a time whenever possible.

I'm not saying that war with the USSR could have been avoided (check my arguments), just that invading in the Russian winter is suicide.
Blitzkreig was an effective tactic, but it was not enough alone. The Schlieffen Plan (similar in purpose and concept) failed to halt WW1.
Sending troops to the eastern front for the invasion was a mistake, and pushing into Britain would have made sense. Unfortunatly we had the RAF.
Why not critisise his use of resources? Hitler should have thrown weight at one objective at a time whenever possible.

I agree, he made valid points at first. If he would have stuck to them and not gone off topic he would have done better.

Invasion of Britain would have been suicide too, they wouldnt have made it across the English Channel with such a weak navy. The RAF kicked the luftwaffa's ass. You can't fuck with the brits, the romans figured that out the hard way.

I agree, he made valid points at first. If he would have stuck to them and not gone off topic he would have done better.

Invasion of Britain would have been suicide too, they wouldnt have made it across the English Channel with such a weak navy. The RAF kicked the luftwaffa's ass. You can't fuck with the brits, the romans figured that out the hard way.

Except for that part were they conquered us (the Romans). Like I said, I agree with his points even if I think they were undeveloped and/or patchy in places.

The British Iles are damn near impregnable, and with a resisting population of millions an invasion of Britain would have been a lost cause.

Except for that part were they conquered us (the Romans). Like I said, I agree with his points even if I think they were undeveloped and/or patchy in places.

True they did conquer the brits, but then they lost the island in its entirety, so like i said you can't fuck with the brits

No, the reason the US military is the best equipped is because they pour ungodly sums into their armed forces. Its a shame they cannot bring up the level of training to reflect those armaments.

What?? :confused: Yes, we spend massive amounts on our military, but our troops are some of the best-trained in the world (second only to Israel, maybe, not sure)

The British Iles are damn near impregnable, and with a resisting population of millions an invasion of Britain would have been a lost cause.

There has been much speculation that they would not have made it furhter than Kent. Even so, the strategic value of controlling Britain is not to be underestimated.

What?? :confused: Yes, we spend massive amounts on our military, but our troops are some of the best-trained in the world (second only to Israel, maybe, not sure)

British troops recieve better training. Although the comparisons that equate our troops training to US special forces are overstating the facts, it does illustrate the point.

There has been much speculation that they would not have made it furhter than Kent. Even so, the strategic value of controlling Britain is not to be underestimated.

Controlling britain would have been very good for germany, but you have to wiegh the sides, pouring billions of marks into controlling an unruly population for some resources. or leaving them be. Germany would never have seen the British coast before they were sunk by a superior navy and the RAF.

Controlling britain would have been very good for germany, but you have to wiegh the sides, pouring billions of marks into controlling an unruly population for some resources. or leaving them be. Germany would never have seen the British coast before they were sunk by a superior navy and the RAF.

True, but controlling Britain would have very much closed up the Western front. With nowhere to stockpile troops or supplies the US and Canada would have had a hell of a time invading. But I concur the RAF and RN would have destroyed almost any aquatic assault force.

True, but controlling Britain would have very much closed up the Western front. With nowhere to stockpile troops or supplies the US and Canada would have had a hell of a time invading. But I concur the RAF and RN would have destroyed almost any aquatic assault force.

He may have closed up a major front; but he would still have to deal with an unruly population. The brits wouldn't have been oppressed with out a fight. It would like the resistance in paris only on a MUCH broader scale. It just wouldn't be worth it. He would never be able to open or close another front with the risk of a british rebellion. Manpower would be wasted as a security force.

I'm not saying that war with the USSR could have been avoided (check my arguments), just that invading in the Russian winter is suicide.

I disagreed with his initial point, not your later one. He clearly did think the war coud have been avoided.


Blitzkreig was an effective tactic, but it was not enough alone. The Schlieffen Plan (similar in purpose and concept) failed to halt WW1.

Again, I'm disagreeing with his initia post, not your (better informed) argument.


Sending troops to the eastern front for the invasion was a mistake, and pushing into Britain would have made sense. Unfortunatly we had the RAF.

Precisely the reason why pushing into Britain did not make sense. Why leave an invasion army in France when there is little prospect of launching an invasion?


Why not critisise his use of resources? Hitler should have thrown weight at one objective at a time whenever possible.

I'm not sure it was possible. Almost certainly not by the time the Normandy invasion was being planned.

True, but controlling Britain would have very much closed up the Western front. With nowhere to stockpile troops or supplies the US and Canada would have had a hell of a time invading. But I concur the RAF and RN would have destroyed almost any aquatic assault force.

Unless Hitler pulled his wolf packs out of the atlantic and sank every non-german ship in channel. but he would still have to deal with the RAF.

[QUOTE=The Pictish Revival;12127336]I disagreed with his initial point, not your later one. He clearly did think the war coud have been avoided.[QUOTE]

war could have been avoided for a while if hitler had abided by the non-agression pact; at the risk of a more powerful enemy. So im on the fence about that one.

He may have closed up a major front; but he would still have to deal with an unruly population. The brits wouldn't have been oppressed with out a fight. It would like the resistance in paris only on a MUCH broader scale. It just wouldn't be worth it. He would never be able to open or close another front with the risk of a british rebellion. Manpower would be wasted as a security force.

I think you over estimate the scale of long term resistance they would face. Although the push up and across the country would have been long and bloody, I think many would have resigned themselves and got on living once Churchhills mangled body was hung from Parliments gates (sorry for the imagery), but you may be right.

Unless Hitler pulled his wolf packs out of the atlantic and sank every non-german ship in channel.

Would work against the point of wolfpacks, which were an ambush force, not suited to large scale battles.
As you say, the RAF would have remained, and could have devastated any invasion fleet.

I think you over estimate the scale of long term resistance they would face. Although the push up and across the country would have been long and bloody, I think many would have resigned themselves and got on living once Churchhills mangled body was hung from Parliments gates (sorry for the imagery), but you may be right.

Possible. But the utter brutality of a fight up britain would force both sides to the brink of insanity. The germans would eventually kill every brit they met just to keep them from joining the resistance, thus strenghthing the british resolve. and churchhills body would never be hung from the paliments gates; he along with the royal family would have fled to America where they would direct the resistance from there.

Would work against the point of wolfpacks, which were an ambush force, not suited to large scale battles.
As you say, the RAF would have remained, and could have devastated any invasion fleet.

he would have had no choice, either be massacred by a stronger navy or be killed by the planes. the luftwaffa would have provided minimal security against the faster british planes. I don't think there really is anyway for an invasion force to make it across the english channel. and if they did it would be at the cost of many german lives.

Precisely the reason why pushing into Britain did not make sense. Why leave an invasion army in France when there is little prospect of launching an invasion?

Because that same army kept the place occupied (overkill perhaps) and stood ready for an Allied counter-invasion.

war could have been avoided for a while if hitler had abided by the non-agression pact; at the risk of a more powerful enemy.

No, the pact was only in place because Hitler didn't want to fight on more than one front and Stalin needed time to rearm.

Because that same army kept the place occupied (overkill perhaps) and stood ready for an Allied counter-invasion.



No, the pact was only in place because Hitler didn't want to fight on more than one front and Stalin needed time to rearm.

so war was inevitable I understand that, but invading when he did was a critical logistical error that I think cost him the war.
that along with britain.

I think you over estimate the scale of long term resistance they would face.

The Polish resistance and French resistance caused all sorts of problems with no previous training, no organisation and no weapons allocated to them.
A little known fact about the Home Guard is that it part of its role was as a cover for the 'auxiliary units', civilians trained in guerilla warfare, supported by arms caches and receiving their orders through a network of underground communications bunkers. Among other things they had plastic explosives, not even available to the regular army at the time.

Possible. But the utter brutality of a fight up britain would force both sides to the brink of insanity. The germans would eventually kill every brit they met just to keep them from joining the resistance, thus strenghthing the british resolve. and churchhills body would never be hung from the paliments gates; he along with the royal family would have fled to America where they would direct the resistance from there.

I'm not sure about the first bit (we're not that strong a people). As for the Churchhill part, that was more symbolic than literal. The Royal family did not have that much to fear, they are closely related to the Wilhelms and probably would have been treated with some respect by the nationalist Germans (even without a Wilhelm on the throne).

so war was inevitable I understand that, but invading when he did was a critical logistical error that I think cost him the war.
that along with britain.

I agree, thats what I have been saying all along.

The Polish resistance and French resistance caused all sorts of problems with no previous training, no organisation and no weapons allocated to them.
A little known fact about the Home Guard is that it part of its role was as a cover for the 'auxiliary units', civilians trained in guerilla warfare, supported by arms caches and receiving their orders through a network of underground communications bunkers. Among other things they had plastic explosives, not even available to the regular army at the time.

I was aware of that its just the scale of resistance rather than the intensity that I dispute. I doubt the Germans would have to kill every single British person for security.

I'm not sure about the first bit (we're not that strong a people). As for the Churchhill part, that was more symbolic than literal. The Royal family did not have that much to fear, they are closely related to the Wilhelms and probably would have been treated with some respect by the nationalist Germans (even without a Wilhelm on the throne).

You may not be that strong, but I know that the English can only be pushed so far. Brutality may be a bit strong of a word but I still hold that taking britain would have done more harm than good.

Because that same army kept the place occupied (overkill perhaps) and stood ready for an Allied counter-invasion.

Hitler had no reason to suspect a counter invasion at that stage, with the US still neutral (at least in theory) and the Royal Navy not being able to create a fleet of amphibious landing craft out of thin air.

I was aware of that its just the scale of resistance rather than the intensity that I dispute. I doubt the Germans would have to kill every single British person for security.

that was not meant literaly, but the manpower needed to secure every british town and city would have been a nightmare for the riech. And since they were already at war with russia they wouldn't have been able too. Britain would cause the germans no end of trouble.

You may not be that strong, but I know that the English can only be pushed so far. Brutality may be a bit strong of a word but I still hold that taking britain would have done more harm than good.

I'm not disagreeing with that, as long as you acknowledge the advantages for the Nazis of taking it. It really does depend on how much of the bulldog bluster was actually bluster.

Hitler had no reason to suspect a counter invasion at that stage, with the US still neutral (at least in theory) and the Royal Navy not being able to create a fleet of amphibious landing craft out of thin air.

I agree; with England being bombed into ruins hitler hadn't a need to fear the allies. and the army would have been better suited fighting against a very real threat Russia.

Just to clarify, exactly what date are we talking about. Since it seems to be causing some inconsistencies?

The British Iles are damn near impregnable, and with a resisting population of millions an invasion of Britain would have been a lost cause.

*girlish giggle*

If only.

I'm not disagreeing with that, as long as you acknowledge the advantages for the Nazis of taking it. It really does depend on how much of the bulldog bluster was actually bluster.

I'm not disagreeing with you either. I guess it is sort of a 50/50 situation. on the one hand lots of resources, one the other massive resistance and most likely not getting the resources you came for off the island.

Just to clarify, exactly what date are we talking about. Since it seems to be causing some inconsistencies?

who is this meant for.

I was aware of that its just the scale of resistance rather than the intensity that I dispute. I doubt the Germans would have to kill every single British person for security.

The Polish resistance were still causing trouble, years after their country had been taken over. Various Nazi atrocities committed against them only seemed to encourage them.
And the French resistance was a tiny organisation from the outset - its size was exaggerated by Allied propaganda - but still kept the Germans busy.

who is this meant for.

TPR really.

The Polish resistance were still causing trouble, years after their country had been taken over. Various Nazi atrocities committed against them only seemed to encourage them.
And the French resistance was a tiny organisation from the outset - its size was exaggerated by Allied propaganda - but still kept the Germans busy.

kept them busy so much so that many german officials wanted just to blow the paris and other major cities off the map.

The Polish resistance were still causing trouble, years after their country had been taken over. Various Nazi atrocities committed against them only seemed to encourage them.
And the French resistance was a tiny organisation from the outset - its size was exaggerated by Allied propaganda - but still kept the Germans busy.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't have caused all kinds of hell. My response was more prompted by my argument with Bolysica over we British's resolve.

defeating russia would have been good and bad for germany too, because like the brits the russians would cause some major problems for hitler to. The russian never go down easy. hell, when napolean invaded the russian czar burned down moscow so the french couldn't take it.

It seems like the Germans managed just fine in pretty much all the other places they conquered.

Just put some radical Brit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce) in charge, and that'll be that.

defeating russia would have been good and bad for germany too, because like the brits the russians would cause some major problems for hitler to. The russian never go down easy. hell, when napolean invaded the russian czar burned down moscow so the french couldn't take it.

The same 'scorched earth' policy was called for by Stalin actually. That combined with General Winter beat the Germans better that the millions of suicide troops.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't have caused all kinds of hell. My response was more prompted by my argument with Bolysica over we British's resolve.

im not saying the british would have fought on indefinently. they would eventually give up in the face of superior forces. But until that time, which would not have been in the near future the trouble wouldn't have ended. France resisted since the time of their defeat to the time of allied liberation.

It seems like the Germans managed just fine in pretty much all the other places they conquered.

Just put some radical Brit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce) in charge, and that'll be that.

That guy gets some real stick around here.

It seems like the Germans managed just fine in pretty much all the other places they conquered.

Just put some radical Brit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce) in charge, and that'll be that.

barely, they german troops were harrassed where ever they went, because they weren't very nice conqerors:rolleyes:

It seems like the Germans managed just fine in pretty much all the other places they conquered.

Just put some radical Brit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce) in charge, and that'll be that.

Oh, why did you have to go and ruin the whole thread by saying something all intelligent-like?
Phooey, this was beginning to be a fun read and all....

*packs away popcorn and deckchair*

barely, they german troops were harrassed where ever they went, because they weren't very nice conqerors:rolleyes:

They weren't terrible in the West, but the East was another story.

They weren't terrible in the West, but the East was another story.

thats because hitler just had a general hatred for the slavics.

thats because hitler just had a general hatred for the slavics.

No arguments there.

They weren't terrible in the West, but the East was another story.

and hitler had some supporters in the west, such as the cross of fire party if france but no one supported him in russia.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't have caused all kinds of hell. My response was more prompted by my argument with Bolysica over we British's resolve.

That being so, my point is that invading Britain would have tied up resources which were badly needed to deal with Stalin.

I recently looked again at some articles on WWII and I find myself wondering why Hitler and his Nazi Germany lost. My opinion is as follows:
A. he betrayed Joseph Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union ( Dumbass )
B. he relied too heavily on the blitzkrieg; using short range bombers spearheaded by panzer divisions and infantry. Which by the way the Soviets, in their infinite resourcefulness, countered by dismantling their factories and moving them past the urals thus out of range of the junker bombers. And continued to pump out planes and tanks even after the major cities of western russia were bombed back to the stoneage.
C. Adolf Hitler called off the invasion of the British Islands, so he could stab Stalin in the back, and sent most of his troops ( more than a million, if I read correctly and several panzer divisions ) to Russia in operation Barborossa.
D. He failed to take the advise of his more experianced advisors and didn't bulk up his defences in France when they all new an allied invasion was inevitable; because allied confidence had been bolstered when Rommels Afrika Corp had taken losses at the hands of the Americans, British, and Australians.
These are just a few reasons.

Ok, I'm gonna try my best at this.

A) Invading the Soviet Union was the only viable option and probably the smartest. If successful, it would have rooted out Britain's most powerful potential ally (at the time, considering America's isolationism, of the people atleast). That, and Stalin would have eventually invaded Germany anyways. War between the two was inevitable.

B) That heavy reliance on Blitzkrieg could have won them the war. They came within 35 miles of Moscow. If they captured Moscow the Russians would definitely have lost. It was like a nervous centre hub for Russia. Rail roads, resource and supply lines, etc. all ran through Moscow and capturing Moscow would have been a HEFTY blow to the Ruskies.

C) Ahh Sea Lion, it's a good thing he called it off really. Mainly because the Germans lacked anything that could constitute a proper landing. In Sea Lion the Germans wanted to land more divisions than the Allies did on D-Day. The Germans lacked anything in the way of proper amphibious transports like the Allies had for D-day. That and there's two little things called the RN and RAF.

D) As for France, I pretty much agree with you there. A lot of the mistakes Hitler made were from ignoring advice from his generals. Or not getting rid of some of his generals *cough* Goering *cough*.

That guy gets some real stick around here.
Hey, the Norwegians didn't particularly like Quisling either. But it's not like they had a choice in the matter.

Sure there was the occasional resistance in the various conquered territories, but you don't need massively experienced troops to deal with that. A conquered Britain would just have meant a few more second-rate reserve units having to be used for occupation duties. Compared to the strategic and economic benefits of having conquered Britain, the occasional assassination or sabotage would hardly even register.

If Hitler had somehow been able to launch an invasion shortly after France surrendered, Britain would've fallen in no time flat. What came back from Dunkirk had dropped all their equipment on the way and had to be refitted again. The Home Guard was a joke, even the Volkssturm later would've been more effective. There's no reason to believe that the Wehrmacht would've had any more trouble beating the British Army than they had beating everyone else around at the time.

If only there wasn't the problem of logistics, that is.

That being so, my point is that invading Britain would have tied up resources which were badly needed to deal with Stalin.

I agree with him again; as i've been saying, britain would have done more harm than good.

That being so, my point is that invading Britain would have tied up resources which were badly needed to deal with Stalin.

I would agree that resources were needed, however how Hitler fought the war in the East was pathetic (Stalin too but...) and if he had considered how he would have done it better, taking Britain would have secured his control of Western Europe (unless Spain did something stupid).

It seems like the Germans managed just fine in pretty much all the other places they conquered.

Just put some radical Brit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce) in charge, and that'll be that.

I met one of the British troops that was involved in getting him back to Britain. Really good looking wife, apparently.

Hey, the Norwegians didn't particularly like Quisling either. But it's not like they had a choice in the matter.

Sure there was the occasional resistance in the various conquered territories, but you don't need massively experienced troops to deal with that. A conquered Britain would just have meant a few more second-rate reserve units having to be used for occupation duties. Compared to the strategic and economic benefits of having conquered Britain, the occasional assassination or sabotage would hardly even register.

If Hitler had somehow been able to launch an invasion shortly after France surrendered, Britain would've fallen in no time flat. What came back from Dunkirk had dropped all their equipment on the way and had to be refitted again. The Home Guard was a joke, even the Volkssturm later would've been more effective. There's no reason to believe that the Wehrmacht would've had any more trouble beating the British Army than they had beating everyone else around at the time.

If only there wasn't the problem of logistics, that is.

wrong! you say this as if the german army was invincible. I think the constant bombing of german supply lines and constant harrassment of german troops would have registered. there were other places with the needed resources that could have been more easily controlled.

barely, they german troops were harrassed where ever they went, because they weren't very nice conqerors:rolleyes:
And it didn't really matter, did it.

There was only one resistance movement that really hurt them, and that was the Soviet Partisans.

All the other ones were occasionally annoying, but never actually impacted on the progress of the war significantly.

I'm not saying the British wouldn't have had a resistance of their own. I'm saying that there's no reason to believe the Germans would've had any more trouble dealing with it than they had dealing with all the others.

Hey, the Norwegians didn't particularly like Quisling either. But it's not like they had a choice in the matter.

Sure there was the occasional resistance in the various conquered territories, but you don't need massively experienced troops to deal with that. A conquered Britain would just have meant a few more second-rate reserve units having to be used for occupation duties. Compared to the strategic and economic benefits of having conquered Britain, the occasional assassination or sabotage would hardly even register.

If Hitler had somehow been able to launch an invasion shortly after France surrendered, Britain would've fallen in no time flat. What came back from Dunkirk had dropped all their equipment on the way and had to be refitted again. The Home Guard was a joke, even the Volkssturm later would've been more effective. There's no reason to believe that the Wehrmacht would've had any more trouble beating the British Army than they had beating everyone else around at the time.

If only there wasn't the problem of logistics, that is.

That early I would agree with you, but Hitler left it too late, and things became steadily tougher in terms of an invasion.

I would agree that resources were needed, however how Hitler fought the war in the East was pathetic (Stalin too but...) and if he had considered how he would have done it better, taking Britain would have secured his control of Western Europe (unless Spain did something stupid).

spain wouldn't have done anything they were ravaged by their civil war and if hitler had decided to take it, spain would have fallen easily. and if he controlled spain he could have solidified his control of the medditeranian the straits between spain and africa are the only way to access the mediteranian from teh atlantic. SO there would have been no invasion of sicily and itlay and the italians wouldn't have surrendered.

I would agree that resources were needed, however how Hitler fought the war in the East was pathetic (Stalin too but...) and if he had considered how he would have done it better, taking Britain would have secured his control of Western Europe (unless Spain did something stupid).

Maybe, but he didn't have time to conquer Britain and then head for Russia when he got round to it. Russia would have come to him.

The number of casualties the Russians took fighting the Germans suggests to me that the Germans fought very well, so I'm really not convinced they could have done better.

wrong! you say this as if the german army was invincible. I think the constant bombing of german supply lines and constant harrassment of german troops would have registered. there were other places with the needed resources that could have been more easily controlled.

But if Britain is taken there is only so much that can be done.

And it didn't really matter, did it.

There was only one resistance movement that really hurt them, and that was the Soviet Partisans.

All the other ones were occasionally annoying, but never actually impacted on the progress of the war significantly.

I'm not saying the British wouldn't have had a resistance of their own. I'm saying that there's no reason to believe the Germans would've had any more trouble dealing with it than they had dealing with all the others.

they would have a harder time than anywhere else because of the strategic position. unlike france they couldn't move troops in and out at will. moving more troops in to deal with british resistace would have taken time hitler didnt have.

wrong! you say this as if the german army was invincible.
In 1940/1941, it pretty much was. France was pwned, as was the BEF. Followed by the Brits being pwned again in Yogoslavia and Greece.

I think the constant bombing of german supply lines and constant harrassment of german troops would have registered.
Just like the actions of the French Resistance registered. But until D-Day, those actions weren't important in the grand scheme of things and didn't warrant much attention.

there were other places with the needed resources that could have been more easily controlled.
It's not so much about resources as it is about having a free back and no base from which to attack Europe.

With Britain conquered, it would've been that much more difficult for the US to get involved in the war. The Lend-lease transports to the USSR would've had a more difficult time, and D-Day would've had to come from North Africa (and remember that presumably there wouldn't have been a Montgomery or an El Alamein as Egpyt would probably have been occupied as well).

Not to mention the lack of a base for bombing German cities.

Maybe, but he didn't have time to conquer Britain and then head for Russia when he got round to it. Russia would have come to him.

The number of casualties the Russians took fighting the Germans suggests to me that the Germans fought very well, so I'm really not convinced they could have done better.

It was not so much a matter of the Germans fighting well as the USSR fighting abysmally. Some devisions would have less than half their men armed. And many of the men were, quite literally rounded up from their home villages into trucks and driven to the front getting a briefing and told how to handle a gun on the way (although that was only relevant if they arrived at the same time as a new sipment of rifles).

they would have a harder time than anywhere else because of the strategic position. unlike france they couldn't move troops in and out at will. moving more troops in to deal with british resistace would have taken time hitler didnt have.
They did it in Norway, didn't they?

Same problem - solved by a few transport ships.

That early I would agree with you, but Hitler left it too late, and things became steadily tougher in terms of an invasion.

Seeing as there was no physical way for Hitler's troops to get to Britain, it makes little difference whether he should have invaded straight after Dunkirk or not - he didn't have the option.

But if Britain is taken there is only so much that can be done.

there have been other examples of conquered people forcing out their oppressers with significant resistance, one is germanic tribes during roman rule. In fact the huns and the germanic tribes are one of the reasons for the fall of the western roman empire.

In 1940/1941, it pretty much was. France was pwned, as was the BEF. Followed by the Brits being pwned again in Yogoslavia and Greece.


Just like the actions of the French Resistance registered. But until D-Day, those actions weren't important in the grand scheme of things and didn't warrant much attention.


It's not so much about resources as it is about having a free back and no base from which to attack Europe.

With Britain conquered, it would've been that much more difficult for the US to get involved in the war. The Lend-lease transports to the USSR would've had a more difficult time, and D-Day would've had to come from North Africa (and remember that presumably there wouldn't have been a Montgomery or an El Alamein as Egpyt would probably have been occupied as well).

Not to mention the lack of a base for bombing German cities.

some of these problems would have been solved with a stronger navy and a stronger airforce composed of fast planes instead of the clumsy junkers

Well goodbye.
Its 4 and I have to be up at 7. Lets continue this sometime (It won't happen).

Seeing as there was no physical way for Hitler's troops to get to Britain, it makes little difference whether he should have invaded straight after Dunkirk or not - he didn't have the option.

hitler still had transport planes, thats how he invaded the balkins most of the time. Mountinous terrain can reak havok on transport vehicles.

Well goodbye.
Its 4 and I have to be up at 7. Lets continue this sometime (It won't happen).

any particular reason why your leaving. I enjoy argueing with people who can back up their arguments.

It was not so much a matter of the Germans fighting well as the USSR fighting abysmally. Some devisions would have less than half their men armed. And many of the men were, quite literally rounded up from their home villages into trucks and driven to the front getting a briefing and told how to handle a gun on the way (although that was only relevant if they arrived at the same time as a new sipment of rifles).

Interesting, but it does kind of support my 'the Germans couldn't have done much better' claim. If the enemy line up waiting to be shot, it doesn't matter what tactics you use.

I guess this thread has come to a close.

I believe he almost beat the soviet union and if he waited until the right time he would have beat them.

If he had invaded when he wanted, instead of being distracted by rescuing the Italians, he may well have done it.

I think Catholics have an innate predisposition to Fascism. Something to do with automatic acceptance of infallibility and alien episcopal rule?

It's interesting that the 'Irish Freedom Fighters' of the seventies and eighties were so happy to submit to foreign domination from Rome.

Yea....what?

True they did conquer the brits, but then they lost the island in its entirety, so like i said you can't fuck with the brits

Unless you're the Normans.

Then you conquer England, and then spend the next couple of hundred of years conquering Wales and Ireland and extending your control over Scotland.

And then you slowly assimilate with the native English speaking population to make Chaucer feel good.