End of WW2 -- second part

plan_D · 07-12-2005, 04:07 AM

I don't think that would have been possible - he'd have had to knock out the Soviet Union extremely quickly. I know he came extremely close more than once - it was only Hitler's mistakes that prevented victory in the Soviet Union.

However, once Poland had been invaded Britain would declare war on Germany - forcing France to do the same.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-12-2005, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

However, once Poland had been invaded Britain would declare war on Germany - forcing France to do the same.

Which did what? Okay yeah they declaired war on Germany. Yes in the long run the Allies one, we all know that but lets see....England declares war on Germany and does nothing in 1939.....England pressures France into declaring war and they do nothing until they are badly beaten back by the invading Germans.

The point being the Allies did not act properlly or quickly eneogh to stop Hitler as early as 1939 or sooner. Just face it.

plan_D · 07-12-2005, 03:57 PM

If it happened just like that then it happened just like World War 2 - which would mean the exact same outcome.

wmaxt · 07-12-2005, 05:44 PM

We were lucky a number of times, I guess thats part of war.

Wmaxt

plan_D · 07-12-2005, 05:51 PM

The Germans were lucky too. As you say, it's all part of war. You have to take risks in war - well thought risks often pay off. That is why knowing your enemy is the most important rule of war - to take a risk, you must be able to think how your enemy would react.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-13-2005, 05:38 AM

I will agree with that and Hitler obviously did not know his enemies as well as he thought he did. Countless times he thought he knew how the allies would act but in return only made dreadful mistakes.

MP-Willow · 07-20-2005, 01:58 PM

Hitler did not have a good overall plan for the war. He would plan for one battle at a time.

The question of waiting for spring on Babarosa is a good one. I think it might have worked, but weather in spring would have slowed down the addvance.

If the US stays out a year, it would have been hard, the Lend Lease program was not well liked, and a lot of what FDR was doing people thought would draw us into a European war.

plan_D · 07-20-2005, 02:16 PM

"Hitler did not have a good overall plan for the war. He would plan for one battle at a time."

Hitler did not plan the war - he stated his objectives. In the initial stages of the war, it was the German General Staff that planned the battles. It was only when Hitler started getting involved in tactical questions that the war turned upside down for Germany.

"The question of waiting for spring on Babarosa is a good one. I think it might have worked, but weather in spring would have slowed down the addvance."

Operation Barbarossa was set for May, 1941 which is spring. British landings in the Balkans and the revolt in Yugoslavia delayed Barbarossa by six weeks which led to the attack being on 21st June, 1941.
Spring is the best time to attack - it's the perfect weather for advance and it gives you the whole summer to keep going through decent weather. More importantly spring and summer allows your air force to fly unhampered by the weather - it also keeps the roads clear for your traffic.

What makes you think the weather in spring would have slowed down the advance?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-20-2005, 02:31 PM

Hitler delayed Barbarossa to attack Yugoslavia and Greece. If he had not done that maybe just maybe Barbarossa would have worked. The time that it took to take Yugoslavia and Greece is about the same time that it took for the Harsh Winter to hit.

MP-Willow · 08-25-2005, 12:20 PM

Thanks all.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-30-2005, 01:53 PM

Any time!

Lunatic · 09-05-2005, 01:03 PM

Hmm...

First and foremost Hitler believed the rest of the world would cow to the might of the German Army and Luftwaffe'. He played the pre-war game very well, know just how far he could push things without drawing a military response. He judged the timidy of the British/French very well early in the war, thus taking Poland.

The British and French made several serious errors prior to the war. Had they acted Hitler would have lost his hold on Germany, but they did not.

1) The British should have shelled the German shipyards when they broke the treaty of Versialles and started building heavy warships and U-boats.

2) The British and French should have responded to Hitler's military agression in Austria and CS.

3) When the German's attacked Poland, the French and British should have immeadiately surged into Germany!

Once the war started, Hitler failed to take his opponents seriously until it was too late. He could easily have defeated the Soviets had he allied himself with the Ukrainian seperatists but he considered them racially inferior and thus would not do so. Had he done so it would surely have brought Turkey into the war on the side of Germany thus making victory in the Middle East an almost sure thing! This one mistake probably more than anything else cost Hitler the war.

Also he did not manage the economy properly. In 1943 more of Germany's steel production was devoted to domestic production than War production. By comparison, by the end of 1943 over 90% of US steel production was devoted to the war effort. The standard of living of the average German was still rising in the summer of 1943, where in Britain it had fallen to minimal levels almost immeadiately and in the USA it did rise for the lower-lower class (who'd previously had high unemployment levels) but for the upper lower class and above it fell after the US entered the war. By the time German production got really serious about the war they'd already lost.

Hitler understood how to be a bully - he did this very well. But once the bull **** was over and it came down to real fighting he was completely out of his element.

=S=

Lunatic

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-05-2005, 01:39 PM

I will agree with that. The allies should have acted more quickly. Even Germany's Generals told Hitler that Germany was not prepared for a war. Some people will say that England and France were not ready either but I disagree they could have stopped Hitler then.

I also agree that Hitler was a lousy tactician and military man. He was a great politician but a lousy commander.

plan_D · 09-05-2005, 02:03 PM

I think you're both forgetting something about Britain here. Britain could not have just "surged into Germany" as we had an Empire to protect which was under threat from Germany, Italy and Japan. In Europe the BEF only had 350,000 men of little supply and little in the way of heavy weapons. The BEF was in Europe solely to aid the French, without the French main effort, the BEF could not act on it's own because it was too small.

Even German reports hold nothing against the British as they stated the British would not, and could not, act without the French main forces in Europe. The British had to urge France to declare war on Germany in the first place.

I don't understand your attack on Britain for not shelling German shipyards. After all, America had also forced the Versaille Diktat upon Germany. The whole world from 1933-1938 admired Germany, and that includes America.

France and Britain could have done more. France even more so as it had the largest army in Europe at the time. But then so could have all the world.

Britain, at least, held off Germany and all it's European allies on it's own from June 22nd 1940 to June 21st 1941.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-05-2005, 02:07 PM

Somehow I knew you were going to come back and say that. You are shooting past the whole point and the whole point is Britain and France together could have stopped Germany. Im not attacking your precious England, Im saying they had an oppurtunity together and they did not act upon it.