Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Hitler could have won the war if
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Monday, 3rd November 2008
he had wanted the Mediterranean as badly as he wanted Soviet Russia. I was discussing WW2's possible outcomes - IF ONLY - with several friends recently, and they pointed out that in 1941, after the debacle in Greece and Crete, that Germany controlled the entire northern coast of the Med and a large part of the southern coastline as well. The Italian navy, by that time, had ceased to be the laughing stock of Europe. It's ships and air fleets were fighting and its frogmen had managed to sink Queen Elizabeth and Valiant at their moorings. This probably crippled Cunningham's ability to project enough power to protect the Malta convoys and by 1942, Malta was hanging on by a thread. Had Hitler backed Operation Herkules strongly, the axis forces could have taken Malta, which would have eased the process of supplying the German forces in Africa. From there, Rommel's armies, well-supplied and superbly led, could have swept through to Egypt and Suez, cutting off easy British access to its eastern empire and forcing its ships to round the Cape of Good Hope.
Then, considering Hitler's charisma along with the military successes he enjoyed, he might have talked Franco into letting him move troops through Spain, from where he could have taken Gibraltar.
Von der Porten, in his publication ''German Navy'' says:
<quote userid=</quote>...... Mussolini's ''Mare Nostrum'' would become an axis military and commercial highway; and the lower North Atlantic a baseless and dangerous wasteland for the British.
With Josef Stalin's unwillingness to fight except defensively and with all the resources of western Europe concentrated against the British Isles and their supply lines, the chances for British capitulation would have been quite good, especially if Hitler's demands had been moderate.</quote>
There'd have been no allied offensive in Africa, no invasion of Sicily, and the assaults against Italy would never have taken place.
First question: Do you folks think this scenario is a strong possibility, and:
2. assuming that Hitler succeeded in this, and had thus forced Britain to become an unwilling but placid observer, could Hitler have succeeded in a subsequent attack on Russia? -
Message 2
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 3rd November 2008
Von der Porten, in his publication ''German Navy'' says:...... With Josef Stalin's unwillingness to fight except defensively...Ìý
It's really become like beating a dead horse already, but it's safe to say that Von der Porten was wrong when he wrote this:
-
Message 3
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Monday, 3rd November 2008
The point you make brings me back to the importance of Ultra. The history of the war in the Mediterranean might have been very different had not the Battle of Matapan taken place - which was an early success of Bletchley Park.
-
Message 4
Posted by RSS_643_IKWIG (U13662597) on Tuesday, 30th December 2008
With respect; when a Maritime Engineer hammers the table, the DETAIL is FUEL: Aviation fuel. Not just for the 'steamburn' but also the FLIGHT ENGINEERING. Allied Aircraft Carrier BATTLEGROUPS dominated the Eastern Mediterranean where there was an 'oft' landing site; aka. LEROS and RHODES: behind 'enemy lines'. Island Hopping by another name; whilst still 'in company' with the enemy occupying force (who is unaware of your presence during the transit or transfer). This depends on prior understanding of the AREA and 'Air Defence Net'. Accommodated by SBA or even SBS; on site (first hand), observation and survelliance aswell as ULTRA - TRAFFIC analysis and ENIGMA 'typo' description of UNIT (particularly FLAK 8.8cm BATTERY) transport: within THEATRE or operational areas. The Eastern Mediterranean 'lay heavy on the table' at CASABLANCA because the TURKISH QUESTION remained unanswered. A NEUTRAL and 'declared non - combatent' such as TURKEY framed one end of the Mediterranean BOOKCASE and protected the CAUCAUS and thus BAKU oilfield. If LAH had opted to land at Poti in GEORGIA then the run through the TIBLISI 'corridor' would have changed the course of my own HISTORY.
-
Message 5
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 30th December 2008
my take on this is
the only reason hitler got involved was to bail out mussolini
owning north africa held no strategic or tactical advantage to him - except for inflicting a defeat on the british army which had no chance of getting near the real war
it may have stopped the british from reinforcing the war against the japs - so what
it was a waste of resources for the germans - if gb held north africa what possible danger was it to hitler - 10 British divisions 1000 miles away from the german advance on russia with no chance of aiding the russians
hitler couldnt use the med - so what - his armies were dependant on land lines
he actually needed to say s-d it to the desert war - at that time the british didnt even have the technology to attack the "soft underbelly" by invading italy
all in all it was a complete waste of space - how many crack luftwaffe pilots and aircaft were lost in a pointless diversion when the real war started going badly
in the end 250000 axis troops were captured at tunis - could have been more usa at stalingrad !!
st -
Message 6
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 31st December 2008
Erik Lindsay,
Then, considering Hitler's charisma along with the military successes he enjoyed, he might have talked Franco into letting him move troops through Spain, from where he could have taken Gibraltar.Ìý
On that I'm highly skeptical. Military dictator he was but Mussolini he wasn't. Franco had met Hitler just once, right after the latter had overrun France, but couldn't be talked into joining the Axis even with Gibraltar as the prize. Spain was still shellshocked from its own Civil War and, with a world war just over its border and off its shores, Franco wasn't interested in sequels. And by 1942 the US was in the war, which in any case would have tipped the balance against joining the Axis. -
Message 7
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 31st December 2008
Yes. Hitler's charisma, which certainly existed, worked best on large crowds. People who met him close up tended to be less impressed, though some fell for it.
Franco asked for large concessions in North Africa (to be taken from France) as his price for joining the Axis. Given the state of the military in Spain, he was asking too much, possibly deliberately so. -
Message 8
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 31st December 2008
The Italian Battle Fleet ran every time they knew they were opposed by a force containing a carrier. That was the legacy of Taranto & Matapan. They also performed appallingly against much smaller surface forces, both battles of Sirte attest to that. When they were sent to Malta, the RN assessment of them was that they were barely seaworthy, let alone battleworthy. Don't let Borghese's exploits mislead you on that.
-
Message 9
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Wednesday, 31st December 2008
Surely, victory in North Africa would have given the Axis Powers easy access to the Middle Eastern oilfields.
I think this would have been a worthwhile objective. -
Message 10
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
If Hitler had have had any sense IMHO he should have invaded Turkey and swung thru the Black Sea coastline and hit the Caucasus region from that direction.
However I always wonder if Hitler had taken all of Poland right up to the 1939 Polish-Soviet border rather than the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939 how the war would have went - I know a week might not have made all that much difference but those few hundred KM's and the lack of a buffer before the SU proper and you never know...... -
Message 11
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
Personally ive always wondered what would have happened if Hitler had asked the Poles nicely to allow access to the Russian border?
There was no love lost between the Poles and the Russians. -
Message 12
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
Now that's a good thought.....though I doubt NSDAP foreign affairs officials thought of that one.
Maybe then a single thrust invasion from Eat Prussia against SU in 1939 and ignore Poland altogether? -
Message 13
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
WarsawPact,
Surely, victory in North Africa would have given the Axis Powers easy access to the Middle Eastern oilfields.
I think this would have been a worthwhile objective.Ìý
Certainly. Unfortunately for him, though, two personal factors blinded him from the possibility:
1) Thanks to his lifelong Anglophilia/phobia, he saw the British Empire as a necessity to his post-war vision, wherein they would continue in return for his dominance of Europe.
2) Like many another continental European, his mentality ended at Europe's shores. Even if he'd been hell-bent on destroying the BE, he couldn't imagine tipping the balance by sending two divisions from the Eastern front to North Africa. Indeed, he'd sent troops to North Africa only after Mussolini hollered for help there. -
Message 14
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
Grand Falcon Railroad,
If Hitler had have had any sense IMHO he should have invaded Turkey and swung thru the Black Sea coastline and hit the Caucasus region from that direction.Ìý
And give himself a Turkish ulcer? -
Message 15
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
backtothedarkplace (dan)Free Sean!,
Personally ive always wondered what would have happened if Hitler had asked the Poles nicely to allow access to the Russian border?
There was no love lost between the Poles and the Russians.Ìý
He wouldn't have been Hitler if he'd been so considerate, would he? -
Message 16
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
Grand Falcon Railroad,
Maybe then a single thrust invasion from Eat Prussia against SU in 1939 and ignore Poland altogether?Ìý
Lithuania would have objected.
-
Message 17
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
GFR
I understand that the preferred German option for the carve up of east europe would have seen the USSR gain more of SE poland and germany getting Lithuania.
This would have been advantageous in Barbarossa and the Soviets were firmly against that, despite being very accomodating in most other respects -
Message 18
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
I can well imagine - I know the old Ukraine chestnut rears its ugly head every so often so cue QI buzzers - I wonder why Germany didn't butter up Ukrainian nationalists (before the conflict by way of spies/fifth colulm) and then be evenhanded with them during 1941-42.
-
Message 19
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
Surely, victory in North Africa would have given the Axis Powers easy access to the Middle Eastern oilfields. Ìý
Victory in north Africa gives access to the Suez Canal, but the oil was still well over a thousand miles east of Egypt across inhospitable desert in Iraq. It could (and would) have been defended with good supply routes from British India.
I don't think this realy is such an easy victory. -
Message 20
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
I think the only way Hitler despite even my own protestations could have won is by either (a) developing an atomic bomb and dropping one or two either on London and/or New york - Moscow wouldn't count as even this I don' think would have stopped the Sovs. as they'd have just fought on from another capital.
(b) widespread use of chemical weapons on the Eastern Front and maybe an attack on the Normandy beacheads using CW's might have amde allies think again if they'd been successful 1st time.
It's awful but if I'd been a Wehrmacht commander on Eastern Front and could have deployed Sarin etc. on the troops formating to cross Volga against Stalingrad I would have done - or even dumping them on the massed pockets like Korsun - kill the enemy with CW's and then you don't even need to round them up as they're already dead - and saves you even moderate/light resistance. -
Message 21
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
I wonder why Germany didn't butter up Ukrainian nationalists (before the conflict by way of spies/fifth colulm) and then be evenhanded with them during 1941-42Ìý
Did you ever wonder why the Germans did not score six goals in the World Cup semi-final game against Italy? My guess is that Italian defense got on the way. Hitler could not possibly compete with Stalin in the spy/fifth column business, or strategy, or anything else for that matter, except for making the Nazi crowd go crazy during his animated speeches. But, then again, Stalin could keep the crowd clapping to him for as long as he wanted, while his personal guard watched everybody in attendance and made everybody sweat of fear. -
Message 22
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
hi warsaw pact
Surely, victory in North Africa would have given the Axis Powers easy access to the Middle Eastern oilfields.
Ìý
yes indeed - but at that time he didnt need it and didnt want it - by the time he needed it (1944) he couldnt use it as allied airpower meant he couldnt get it
he didnt go there for the oil - once again he went in there to bail out the jackal
the fact that he went into NA meant he wasted thousands of fighters/pilots - millions of tons of fuel/transport ships/U boats/tanks/trucks and first class stroops for nothing
if he had won it made no difference to the real war - the attack on russia
NA wasnt even mentioned in Mein Kamf - it was all about Lebensraum - living space - ie russia
winning in NA would have meant nothing to Hitler being involved the war- being involved in a meanlingless sideshow contributed to him losing it though !!
at -
Message 23
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
it was all about Lebensraum - living space - ie russiaÌý
No, it wasn't. It was about a lot of things that a rational person could hardly reconcile. For example, Hitler named France as Germany's enemy number one. -
Message 24
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 25
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
Hitler could have won the war if.....The American Military kept out of EuropeÌý
I think, no serious historian will argue that after the battle of Kursk fought in the summer of 1943, Hitler had any chance of winning the war left. That's before the US military engaged in Europe. Moreover, Hitler's Minister of Munitions Dr. Fritz Todt warned his boss that the war had been lost in both military and economic terms much earlier than that. -
Message 26
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
suvoretz
no - he said in mein kamf that the first part of it was the defeat of france - the traditional enemy - the ultimate objective was lebensraum - to the east - ie the slavs - untermenshem (SP?)
the west fell quite easily - the germans dont even admit the battle of britain or worry about the invasion of britain - if it happens ok - but
greece and north africa didnt even appear on the german atlas - if the jackal wasnt in so much mire they wouldnt have happened - allowing full concentration on the \real war - barborossa
st -
Message 27
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
no - he said in mein kamf that the first part of it was the defeat of france - the traditional enemy - the ultimate objective was lebensraum - to the east - ie the slavs - untermenshem (SP?)Ìý
There is a world of difference between saying that it was all about lebensraum and saying that it was the ultimate(?) objective, i.e., after the whole host of other objectives will have been achieved. It's not an unimportant distinction for understanding the origins of the second world war. -
Message 28
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Monday, 5th January 2009
Stalt
Totally agree with you that the Balkan and later NA campaigns where sideshows to save Mussolinis face and actually weakenend the German war effort.Not at least that the Balkan campaign delayed Barbarossa.
I go back to German gen staffs answer to Hitler before the war about Italia.With them against us we can hold the mountain passes with a couple of divisions,to have them with us need we to bolster them with at least a half million men.A fairly acurate prediction.
Imho was Hitlers chanses of winning the war slim after 1941.His first chans did he blow in the attack of France,when stopping his panzers to destroy the brittish force alowing Dunkirk.
Whitout that miracle would GB probably sue for peace and we would not even call it WWII. If Hitler later would have a go at Stalin is another question.
His second chanse was the battle of Moscow in winter 41-42,if the Sovietunion had lost that battle would it also end in a German victoria.
Hitlers third chanse couldnt he be the master of.To stop the weermacht was Stalin forced to move nearly the whole of the east Siberian army to Moscow,where those fresh siberian troops turned the tide of the battle of Moscow.
Leaving the east of Ural more or less undefended,if the Japanese would have marched in.
Hitlers fourth chanse was chemical warfare.
Germany had a great advantage there since they where the only ones who had modern nervgas.
How long would GB hold out if London would had been gased.I have seen figures that more than 80% of Londons population would have been viped out by a such an attack.It would naturaly have worked with Moscow to.
A chemical attack with modern nervagents are more devasting than a nuclear attack.
Hasse -
Message 29
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 6th January 2009
hasse
With them against us we can hold the mountain passes with a couple of divisions,to have them with us need we to bolster them with at least a half million men.A fairly acurate prediction.
Ìý
what a good quote - never heard that before - but very true !
re the miracle of dunkirk - maybe it had a slight impact on the war preventing a british surender and it would have allowed more british troops to be used against japan - but no impact of the real war - but if things had panned out as they should have done - it didnt matter that the british saved an army without weapons or equipment - what could they have done - invaded france - i think not !
of course the battle for moscow had a huge impact - but if hitler had targetted moscow in the first place -instead of sending german armies in a meandering wander towards the ussr - AND if he hadnt been obliged to delay Barborassa by 6 weeks in order to support the jackal (again) by invading the balkans - the wehrmacht - maybe not fresh - but certainly before the russian winter - would have arrived on solid ground, and concentrated - even the quilted jackets of the siberians would not have helped
they were warm and accustomed to the cold - they - at that time were still badly led and badly equipped - german armies would have dealt with them piecemeal in good order - war over
a chemical attack on london would have caused thousands of casualties - maybe hundreds of thousands - because of the vagaries of gas use (see ww1) london would not have been devastated - and the next night - Hamburg berlin dresden would have had the same back - we had bigger bombers !!
suvoretz
i see your point - but - france was the first step - it had to be the first step - but when it was done - what was the point of it - you were in control of western europe - which was occupied and governed - big deal
the real plan was to get this huge empire in which the aryan nation had lots of land and space to grow crops rule slaves to do it for you - in effect - be the rulers of the world
after smashing france - if he had been allowed to concentrate on the real war - who know s ahat would have have happened - long live mussolini
st -
Message 30
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Tuesday, 6th January 2009
Stalter
If you consider the situation after the fall of France with Hastings contra Churchill.
Would the opinion in GB had the will to fight on if BEF would have been chrushed at Dunkirk especialy if the Germans would have given GB good terms as was Hitlers wont.IMHO probably not.
About Moscow totaly agree,but the German lost it and more or less the chanse to win,at best they could hope for a stalemate or miracle.
a chemical attack on london would have caused thousands of casualties - maybe hundreds of thousands - because of the vagaries of gas use (see ww1) london would not have been devastated - and the next night - Hamburg berlin dresden would have had the same back - we had bigger bombers Ìý
Its not about bombers its about gas.The best GB or any outside Germany had was mustard gas it nasty alright but to compare it to the German Sarin is to compare a Brown Bess to a modern machine gun both are lethal guns but thats all.
Sarin and later Tabun was the first of the modern nervagents,it would have filtered down slowly into the tube tunnels killng everyone if not put into direct sunlight its deadly weeks after dispersion and a tiny bit on skin or clothes are fatal.Their wasnt and isnt any defense for civilians against it gas masks and good chloting isnt enough only in full MOP and with 100% vigiliance are you safe.
Go in a park a forthnight after the attack and touch a bit of the underside of a leaf you are dead etc etc.
A Sarin attack on London would have killed millions and had broken down the whole infrastructure the rescuers dying in their tracks.The only thing to do would have been to put a cordong around London for at least a forthnight and later take care of the corpses and few survivours and hoping the Germans wouldnt give you another dose.
Hasse -
Message 31
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 6th January 2009
"A Sarin attack"
Now if the Germans were that desperate to sacrifce a few thousand of their own already dying/starving men you'd have thought they'd have dumped a load of it all over the Eastern Front at Stalingrad. -
Message 32
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Tuesday, 6th January 2009
Grand Falcon
We had a discussion about a year ago on those boards,why the Germans didnt use this technological advantage they had on the chemical side.
There where several good guesswork but a clear answer wasnt produced maybe their isnt any.
It can be so easy that the know fact that Hitler loathed gas,since he nearly lost his life and was temporary blinded by gas in WWI,to that the Germans wasnt aware of their advantage and tought that the allies had nervagents to.They arnt that complicated to produce if you know how and have a decent chemical industry.
In other words your guesswork is as good as mine.Luckily didnt they use them,in the rear mirror is it altough clear that used would it probably meant a German victory.
Hasse -
Message 33
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 7th January 2009
Hi Hasse
as I understand it we had nothing equvalent to the german nerve gases until after the war.
In the event of gas being used both the british and the americans were prepared to use mustard gas, to the point that supplies of gas shells were kept on all fronts just incase they were needed.
But in 1940 we were planning on going biological supplies of Anthrax were prepared and ready. Not quite as instantly leathal as sarin but just as unpleasent. -
Message 34
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 7th January 2009
How come Hitler didnt use Sarin when he knew the end was nigh?Or at least to use it againt the Russians? Given his supposided mental state Ive always wondered.
Vf -
Message 35
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Thursday, 8th January 2009
Hi VF - in Armageddon by Max Hastings there is a reference in the latter part of the book to "weapons of despair" being issued to trrops of part of the eastern (well the not so eastern Front by that stage) however Hastings does say these were not confirmed.
-
Message 36
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 8th January 2009
Hi Dan
Naturally would GB retailate with mustard gas,altough mustard gas gives both a worse death and uglier injurys than a nervagent like Sarin.Is the death ratio and protection possibility diversions between mustard gas and Sarin so great that my comparison with a Brown Bess musket to a modern assault gun is valid.
About Anthrax I know that you made experiments on a small island mainly with sheeps.A island in the Hebridees that are still closed down?
Wasnt aware that it was fully ready to use as a biological weapon in 1940,but since you mostly are very well informed is it surly correct.
I´m not well informed how effective Anthrax is as strategic terrorweapon wich when you speak of WMDs whenever if it is biological,chemical or nuclear realy is.Cant I say if it could swing back the big advantage the Germans had on chemical side.
Biological weapons is altough harder to use than chemical,if longlived could a biological attack very easy boomerang back to you.
Altough this type of weapons arnt primarely tactical weapons,WWI shoved this both sides used tactical gas freqently,whith very little battlefieldresults(exept a lot of unecesary suffering).So if the Germans would have used it wouldnt it be at Stalingrad or Nomandy,but against primarly London and later Moscow.
Y friend
Hasse
P.S. Have you figured out how the Egyptians could use their charriots effectivly in battle,and not only as mostly a psychological and harrasing weapon yet
. -
Message 37
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 8th January 2009
hi hasse
my point is - at that time with the big plan in operation - that it didnt matter if we had surrended or not - we were entrenched on an island that had no impact on his war
an intact gb was only really important when the usa entered the war - and who could have predicted that at that time
german armies were going into russia and gb was impotent
when the italian armies were destroyed in NA it made no difference until hitler got involved in a sideshow - which he really didnt need to
interesting about the gas - i believed that all the european powers had the same level of gas expertise !! (the bomber size was a flippant remark)
BUT - as mentioned - why on earth didnt hitler , who knew it was all over - and had no love for his own people let alone the soviets - go out with a bang - or at least a hiss ??
amazing
st -
Message 38
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 9th January 2009
Stalter
my point is - at that time with the big plan in operation - that it didnt matter if we had surrended or not - we were entrenched on an island that had no impact on his war
an intact gb was only really important when the usa entered the war - and who could have predicted that at that time
german armies were going into russia and gb was impotent Ìý
Yes and no,its true that at the time of Barbarossa wasnt GB a military threat to the German as you said.
If we once again look at that scenario that Hitler hadnt stoped his panzer and BEF was chrushed instead of shipped out from Dunkirk and a folowing peace between GB and Gemany.
The war in Europe had then in summer 1940 been over,meaning that german merchant shipping would had started to go and would have continued to supply Germany ewen if Hitler would have sprung Barbarossa a year later,in this scenario is it doubtful if GB once again had declared war on Germany.
WWII wouldnt have been WWII but to wars Germany versus west Europa and Germany versus Sovietunion and the War against Japan a sideshow how quickly and long would the Japanese expansion go after Pearl Harbour(its doubtful that it had come)if GB and USA in peace with Germany could have put the bulk of their fighting forces against the Jap.
Y friend
Hase -
Message 39
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 9th January 2009
stalteriisok,
BUT - as mentioned - why on earth didnt hitler , who knew it was all over - and had no love for his own people let alone the soviets - go out with a bang ... Ìý
I believe he did, in his bunker.
-
Message 40
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 9th January 2009
hi white camry
call that going out with a bang ??? a whimper maybe
of all the reprehensible, despicable, cowardly things that sc-mbag did - that has to be the worst !!
he was sitting in his little bit of misery in the safety of an impregnable fortress - blaming everyone but himself for the situation
he refused to allow the wehrmacht to evacuate the civilians from berlin - he refused his generals tactical freedom to make the capture of Berlin a more costly task
everyone had to stand and die - for him
and when it came to the end of 6 million german soldiers sacrifices (and many more civilians) - what did he do - took pills - after testing them out on blondi - his poor dog !!
if he had gone out in a blaze of glory leading his troops it would have been excusable !!!
if his intent was to do the cowardly thing (as it obviously was) - why didnt he do it earlier when the Russian armies were just about to launch their last attack - he knew it was all over and as soon as he went the war was over
all that suffering - all that slaughter - because he didnt do the decent thing a lot earlier (about 1941 lol)
st -
Message 41
Posted by GARDIE1938 (U13777119) on Sunday, 11th January 2009
This does not really reply to the writers letter,and I admire his knowledge of the war and Hitler,but I could not find a place to start a new item.I think that when the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour,they did what we had been trying to do for a long time,that was to bring the Americans and there resourses into the war.As patriotic as I am,and as much as I admire and respect the men who fought,some giving thier lives for us,I do believe we were fighting a loosing battle.When the Yanks joined the ranks,it was not as much,as the girls are coming,but the Yanks are coming.I dont say,as some say,that the Americans won the war,but thier joining us,made the difference.Then what happens,in the years after the war,we give away,every thing those men fought and died to preserve.I now appologise to the writer,I was supposed to been answering.
-
Message 42
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 43
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Saturday, 17th January 2009
Had they, after the Battle of Britain decided to either delay Barbarossa by a year or simply to send more resources to the Southern front then that would surely have been of potentially war winning significance to them.
Allowing more German effort to be concentrated againt the East.
Gaining infinite oil and denying that same oil to the allies.
Offering a caucus front against the Soviets
Closing the supply route through Persia to the USSR (and potentially temping Japan to close the main Vladivostock route)
Making mutual support with the Japanese more tantalising, maybe even to the point that Japans need for resources could have been partially sated by the German conquests delaying Pearl Harbor and concentrating Japans eforts against other countries possibly including the USSR.
Freeing up 100,000s of Italian troops for the eastern front
Freeing the Italian fleet to operate in the Atlantic
Denying the allies the experience they needed to make Overlord a success and ensuring failure in the eventual French landings. -
Message 44
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 17th January 2009
Had they, after the Battle of Britain decided to either delay Barbarossa by a year or simply to send more resources to the Southern front then that would surely have been of potentially war winning significance to them.Ìý
First of all, war with Great britain was not over by the summer of 1941. Secondly, had Hitler delayed his strike on June 22, 1941, he would have been attacked by the Red Army - probably no later than mid-July of 1941. -
Message 45
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Saturday, 17th January 2009
I don't know anything about that Soviet plan suvorovetz, would be grateful of any research pointers you could give me.
My first reaction is to be thankful it didn't happen as it would surely have been a resounding failure militarily, and politically the end of Stalin. -
Message 46
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 17th January 2009
Mr Pedant
I don't know anything about that Soviet plan suvorovetz, would be grateful of any research pointers you could give me.Ìý
Perhaps, you'd be interested to browse the following exchange:
My first reaction is to be thankful it didn't happen as it would surely have been a resounding failure militarily, and politically the end of StalinÌý
You are mistaken if you are a Stalinist. Stalin's failure to strike first resulted in the eventual demise of the Soviet Union - just as Stalin, as well as Lenin and even Marx before him, had predicted. As for me, you bet I am thankful that this terrible mess ended the way it ended. It could have been much worse, for sure. -
Message 47
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Sunday, 18th January 2009
The idea that Russia would have eventually attacked Germany has been put forth by many historians and it seems likely that sooner or later, had Germany settled the war with Britain taken over Europe as Hitler wanted to, war with the Soviet Union would have been inevitable.
However, to contend as does suvoroetz, that an attack by the
Soviets no later than mid-July 1941 is, I think, wrong. One need only look at what happened when Soviet forces attacked Finland or when Hitler smashed into Russia in June, to visualize what would have happened had the Soviet Union initiated such a war in July.
Reflect: Stalin had purged from his military ranks any commander who was popular with his men and/or was a top-flight field commander....he couldn't stand the idea that one of his generals, or even colonels, might become well-enough-liked to accrue a following that could (in his twisted mind) challenge his complete control over the Soviet Union. Anyone who showed such talent was immediately disposed of. Consider Zhukov - a brilliant leader and a tremendous field commander- Stalin tolerated him only as long as he needed him, but as soon as the war was over and Zhukov had served his purpose, Stalin stepped on him.
The point being that his army in 1941 - large as it was - was leaderless and its equipment was 2nd rate. No trucks, so the Red Army would have had to rely on horse-drawn transport and marching men, no a/c worthy of tangling with the Luftwaffe fighters and the a/c he had were few in number, and tanks with little armour and minimal punch. The men even lacked uniforms and small-arms that were decent. All these things were supplied by the US in vast numbers leaving the Soviets in the east free to concentrate finally on building decent fighter-bombers and good tanks. The Red army were incredibly dependent on the vehicles and a/c built by the US and brought to them by the RN and merchant marine of both Britain and the US. Without that US-made equipment and supplies, they'd have gone under.
And this was when they were fighting a defensive battle. Defensive fighting requires much less in the way of materiel and personnel than offensive fighting. Had they attacked Germany in July of 1941, they'd have battered themselves to bits against Nazi defenders who would have been close to their supply lines and behind solid defensive positions.
Russia was in no position to attack any major army in 1941. -
Message 48
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 18th January 2009
Re: message 49.
Erik,
just a quicky:
I don't want to support here Suvorovetz, but a totalitarian nation is a strange thing. They act many times "unreasonable". It can be contrary to what the German generals did to Hitler in trying for instance to halt the Czechoslovakian invasion or the Fall Gelb, that the a..licking politized Soviet generals had a completely rosecolour and irrealistic thought of a Soviet invasion into Germany? From what I read from a Dutch well known historian there were indeed plans to invade offensively Germany in 1941. If they were realizable however that is another kettle of fish. I let that to the never ending debate on these boards.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 49
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Monday, 19th January 2009
Can I add.....if Hitler had had just trusted the Siegfried line and the troops on Western Front to keep Allies at bay incl. his Luftwaffe units and possibly deployed KMS units to "make a scene" could he have just rammed the Wehrmacht right into the Baltic states and then asked for an armistice - could it have worked?
-
Message 50
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 19th January 2009
Hi, Paul another kettle of fish. I let that to the never ending debate on these boards. Ìý I hear something like 'Duck and cover', eh?
Erik However, to contend as does suvoroetz, that an attack by the Soviets no later than mid-July 1941 is, I think, wrong.Ìý Back to the grind. Repetition is the mother of all learning, I was told. Here comes red herring #1:
One need only look at what happened when Soviet forces attacked Finland or when Hitler smashed into Russia in June, to visualize what would have happened had the Soviet Union initiated such a war in July.Ìý Of course, the Winter war was a massive offensive operation conducted not in mid-July – duh – but in the conditions deemed impossible for executing offensive operations of any kind. Nevertheless, it actually succeeded at the end.
Red herring #2: Reflect: Stalin had purged from his military ranks any commander who was popular with his men and/or was a top-flight field commander....he couldn't stand the idea that one of his generals, or even colonels, might become well-enough-liked to accrue a following that could (in his twisted mind) challenge his complete control over the Soviet Union.Ìý This one I've addressed in these two messages: (54 and 60 from the August 19, 1939 thread, to be precise):
and
Anyone who showed such talent was immediately disposed of. Consider Zhukov - a brilliant leader and a tremendous field commander- Stalin tolerated him only as long as he needed him, but as soon as the war was over and Zhukov had served his purpose, Stalin stepped on himÌý This is a strange statement, given the fact that Zhukov was Stalin's Chief of General Staff for five full months prior to Wehrmacht attack, and he is personally responsible for the loss of the entire first echelon of the Red Army's massive striking force, which he personally was deploying in East Europe.
Red herring number whatever The point being that his army in 1941 - large as it was - was leaderless and its equipment was 2nd rate. No trucks, so the Red Army would have had to rely on horse-drawn transport and marching men, no a/c worthy of tangling with the Luftwaffe fighters and the a/c he had were few in number, and tanks with little armour and minimal punch. Ìý It may have been leaderless alright, although such a renowned by you brilliant leader and a tremendous field commander as Zhukov was in charge. But it was decisively better equipped than Wehrmacht. In fact, the quantitative and qualitative advantage in equipment was much wider than that in men. It's been discussed here ad nauseum too:
The men even lacked uniforms and small-arms that were decentÌý Not a true statement. It is probably incorrectly derived from a piece meal account of the chaos caused by the unexpected Wehrmacht attack on June 22, whereas enormous amounts of equipment, munitions, supplies, fuel, even maps stored for offensive deployment were exposed to the enemy attack and consequently lost unused.
All these things were supplied by the US in vast numbers leaving the Soviets in the east free to concentrate finally on building decent fighter-bombers and good tanksÌý This is non sequitur. Western (mostly US) companies, banks and government officials (being conspicuously represented by the same people quite often) had been instrumental in building Soviet military industrial complex in the 20s and 30s (see Anthony Sutton's Western Technology and Soviet Development, 1917 to 1930). Roosevelt exchanged strange favors with Stalin even as the latter was Hitler's de jure partner in crime between August 1939, and June 1941. Red Army's 1400 tanks T-34 (the best tanks of the war by unanimous vote) available to Zhukov in June 1941 were a US Christie design rip-off. At that same time, having declined to commission Christie's tanks, US Army had a park of hardly half a thousand of crappy M-series tanks.
The Red army were incredibly dependent on the vehicles and a/c built by the US and brought to them by the RN and merchant marine of both Britain and the US. Without that US-made equipment and supplies, they'd have gone underÌý Of course, it did not hurt. PHD in History Y. Felshtinsky meticulously estimated that, due to the disastrous start of the campaign, Stalin's war machine lost 85% of its military assets, personnel, population pool available for conscription to military service and INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY in 1941. Yet, it went on to out-produce Hitler's war machine as follows – mind you, this is the link from the guy who argued with me, actually:
And this was when they were fighting a defensive battle. Defensive fighting requires much less in the way of materiel and personnel than offensive fighting. Had they attacked Germany in July of 1941, they'd have battered themselves to bits against Nazi defenders who would have been close to their supply lines and behind solid defensive positions.Ìý No, they weren't. That was exactly the reason why the Red Army regulars were completely destroyed in 1941:
Russia was in no position to attack any major army in 1941Ìý You think. And yet, that was exactly what Stalin and his General Staff were about to do:
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.