Germany win or lose

Ive been to a shrink

I've been to a shrink about split personality syndrome and he has cured me.
Anyway.

Germany bit off more than she cd chew, the overwhelming reason for her defeat wasn't bombing or D-Day or Ultra but the operational victories of the Red Army in the EAst.

Combatlogo you have an amazing way of making the sacrifice of those U.S., brit and Canadian soldiers sound meaningless. Agreed Germany took on too many nations at once with finishing original targets (the RAF was on its knees and Goering and Hitler dropped the ball by switching to city bombing thus allowing the RAF to get back up). Hitler also made the mistake of treating the Desert war as a side show when total victory there would have opened a new (and better route to Russia).
As for Russia Germany could have flattened Russia had they A: not alienated the Ukranians and various other eastern folk who for the most part detested Stalin and communism (I guess the attrocities sort of changed their minds). B: not bothered with Stalingrad (or pulled out before it was too late or had Paulus closed the door on the Russians when he had the chance). Oh yes the Russian army was allowed by Paulus to retreat into the city and thats when the trouble realy got going. Paulus stopped for 1 day rather than close the trap he had the Russians caught in and of course they escaped.
B: if they had finished Britain when they had the chance thereby allowing more than 40 divisions into the Eastern front.
on another note hitlers scenario for Normandy was another disaster waiting to happen.
Overall however it didnt help that military strategy was in the hands of an incompetent like Hitler. It is little wonder he was often the despair of his generals for he knew nothing of the principal of strategic withdrawl and how it preserved forces to fight and perhaps win another day. Hitlers lack of military know how had already been responsible for the disasters that overtook them in Russia and and the middle east. However if Hitler had actually listened to his generals there was a strong possibility that Germany could have won.

[Docman]

Gentlemen.

This is a thread on whether Germany (or the Axis powers) could have won WWII.

You have been warned.

[combatlogo]

Many historians have devoted a lot of their work to analysing what might have happened if some of the key turning points of WW2 had gone the other way, whats wrong with people doing it here?

I would contend that most serious historiography does not engage in this kind of endless speculation - to be sure, there have been a series of "what if" scenarios published by serious historians in recent years but this is more an example of spotting a gap in the market and cashing in on it than a serious contribution to the particular historiography of a given subject.

As an example, I challenge anyone to show me a professional, academically respected historian of WW II who claims that Germany cd have won with long range bombers hitting NY or that Germany didn't develop an atom bomb because someone got the maths wrong.

Germany bit off more than she cd chew, the overwhelming reason for her defeat wasn't bombing or D-Day or Ultra but the operational victories of the Red Army in the EAst.

[yellowjacket]

Historical debate without historical accuracy, or at least plausibility, is a waste of time. The Discovery channels are primarily about entertainment, and they seem happy not to let the facts get in the way of a good story.

[ICUN]

When I said "here" I meant this particular thread as opposed to IMO altogether - yes, there are some pointless threads but I don't think this is 1 of them.

No, I didn't extrapolate a "ridiculous generalisation" from a reasonable comment - I took it from the way you dismissed some of what other people said above in a seemingly arrogant way and put it all down to people watching too much Discovery Channel. Do you think some people here may get information from sources other than TV?

"As Murph said, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle - this speculation is ultimately pointless and just an excuse for those who've seen a few shows on the History or Discovery channels to parade their specious theories.

Maybe it isn't "an excuse for people who have seen a few shows on History or Discovery Channels to parade their specious theories", maybe it's a thread for people to talk about a few "what if's" from WW2 without getting shot down all the time by someone telling them it's a waste of time. Many historians have devoted a lot of their work to analysing what might have happened if some of the key turning points of WW2 had gone the other way, whats wrong with people doing it here?

[combatlogo]

You can suppose whatever the hell you want to...Do I need to link to some of the pointless threads on here? Hell, the new Admin even mentions some....I love the way you can extrapolate your ridiculous generalization from what was a pretty reasonable comment of mine.

[ICUN]

I suppose if it doesn't adhere to combatlogo's opinion it must be a load of shite then and we're all wasting our time here.

[combatlogo]

Originally posted by Goldie fish
If you think its a pointless discussion,why did you feel the need to add your opinion?

Umm, to demonstrate that it is poinless speculation??? Not like IMO hasn't had any such threads before....

[yellowjacket]

That Discovery programme was on again yesterday, and was interesting speculative fiction. I particularly liked the Hypersonic bomber concept - not a bad idea in principle, except they never mentioned they still can't figure what materials to make one out of today to handle the extreme temperatures caused by the speed and re-entry, yet the programme suggested it was an option for late-war Germany, that had to make its rocket interceptors out of wood and jet turbines with an 8hr service life because of material shortages?

[Goldie fish]

If you think its a pointless discussion,why did you feel the need to add your opinion?

[combatlogo]

But then Hitler was of the opinion that the Germans wussed out of WW1.... so I suppose it all makes sense really..

Was he bollocks - Hitler subscribed wholehearedly to the "stabbed in the back" theory to explain Germany's defeat in WW I - ie Jesish Communists fomented revolution forcing the pols to sue for peace - which ignores the reality that the German Army had been decisively defeated on the Western Front, that Ludendorff and von Hindenburg were the effective rulers of Germany and that they left it up to the pols to deal with the consequence sof the Army's defeat.

I do think they could have brought the British to their knees if they had planned for it properly i.e. starve them (and thus ourselves...) into sueing for peace.

Thry had such plans - Doenitz had "plans" for 300 U-boats at the start of the war - unfortunately for him, I believe they had 6 ocean-going subs in Sept 1939 - they also had plans for heavy bombers, aircraft carriers etc etc - bit like a kid in a toy store with limited pocket money - Germany's resources didn't stretch that far - As Murph said, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle - this speculation is ultimately pointless and just an excuse for those who've seen a few shows on the History or Discovery channels to parade their specious theories.

[pym]

I have a feeling that whoever was in charge of Nazi spending on Research and Development of new weapons was either inept or wanted them to lose (no bad thing). Yes they had spent money and considerable time on developing 4 engined bombers to hit New York (an idiotic idea at any stage of the war), jet powered "peoples fighters", tail launched rocket planes, missiles and even suicide planes. It smacks of desperation more than anything. Why didnt they use money on tried and tested technology? When I was younger I wondered what would have happened if the Luftwaffe had got the plans for the Japanese Zero fighter and used it against the RAF in the battle of britain- it had the range and manouverability that the Luftwaffe lacked at the start. Instead they embarked on building the jet Me 262... and used it as a bomber..

Invading Russia when they did was idiotic, as was declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbour.

I do think they could have brought the British to their knees if they had planned for it properly i.e. starve them (and thus ourselves...) into sueing for peace. The Nazis obviously hadnt learned their lesson from their own countries experience of the first world war - where apparently hundreds of thousands of Germans had died of starvation during the latter half - and that you'll generally find has a bad effect on your war effort.... But then Hitler was of the opinion that the Germans wussed out of WW1.... so I suppose it all makes sense really..

[combatlogo]

Originally posted by SPOOKY
One name: Walter Von Braun.

Responsible for US first space flight, cathcing up with Sputnik, ICBM's and with sending man to the moon.........

The V3 "rocket plane" he had envisaged would have had the range to reach NYC, and Moscow.
A genuis who honed his trade in bunkers bult by slaves worked to death, and who based his design benchmarks on Astronaut tolerances in space flight on the work of good old Dr. Mengle & co.....
All research direction in such a specilaized area was never traced back to the good Von Braun's information requiement, naturally........

As to payload - it wasn't an atomic weapon planned, it was supposedly ChemBio.

The Germans DIDN'T get the atom bomb NOT because of tech. shortcomings, rather a simple miscalulation..........

The ammount of Uranium required was wrong by a factor of 100% !
(compared to the US project.)

There wasn't enough Uranium in the world at that time to make it a viable weapon!

This post could only be viable if we go before 1939, and imagine that Hitler had listened to Fritz Todt, Albert Speer and his group of experts who were responsible for some of the most enlightened tech./econmoic policies of the 1930's and beyond.....
so much so that most countires adopted them in great measure after WWII
(e.g Autobahn/'Einsinhower Freeways'; civil internal airlinks; transport 'hubs';
"centers" for regional industrial growth/stimulation & and scientific research grants which included purpose bult facilities etc.)

Speer had told Hitler not to start a war before 1943 - when the Luftwaffe had been built up(including the promising research into jet propulsion...), the Whermacht totally mechanized (still 70% horsedrawn by 1944!), and a new generation of silent subs (ie. Snorkel/diesel-electric.) developed....

NB. all developments that German scientists were well ahead off the rest of the wrold in 1939, and if peace had continued by 1943...who knows?

There would have been no Manhatten Project for a (very decisive) start.........

However things didn't turn out that way, and the war against Nazism was won at "Belecthly Park"(spelling?) witht the secret breakling of ULTRA.........

More Discovery Channel fueled fantasy - the war was won basically because the Red Army decisively defeated the Wehrmacht in the field - everything else was gravy.

One name: Walter Von Braun.

Responsible for US first space flight, cathcing up with Sputnik, ICBM's and with sending man to the moon.........

The V3 "rocket plane" he had envisaged would have had the range to reach NYC, and Moscow.
A genuis who honed his trade in bunkers bult by slaves worked to death, and who based his design benchmarks on Astronaut tolerances in space flight on the work of good old Dr. Mengle & co.....
All research direction in such a specilaized area was never traced back to the good Von Braun's information requiement, naturally........

As to payload - it wasn't an atomic weapon planned, it was supposedly ChemBio.

The Germans DIDN'T get the atom bomb NOT because of tech. shortcomings, rather a simple miscalulation..........

The ammount of Uranium required was wrong by a factor of 100% !
(compared to the US project.)

There wasn't enough Uranium in the world at that time to make it a viable weapon!

This post could only be viable if we go before 1939, and imagine that Hitler had listened to Fritz Todt, Albert Speer and his group of experts who were responsible for some of the most enlightened tech./econmoic policies of the 1930's and beyond.....
so much so that most countires adopted them in great measure after WWII
(e.g Autobahn/'Einsinhower Freeways'; civil internal airlinks; transport 'hubs';
"centers" for regional industrial growth/stimulation & and scientific research grants which included purpose bult facilities etc.)

Speer had told Hitler not to start a war before 1943 - when the Luftwaffe had been built up(including the promising research into jet propulsion...), the Whermacht totally mechanized (still 70% horsedrawn by 1944!), and a new generation of silent subs (ie. Snorkel/diesel-electric.) developed....

NB. all developments that German scientists were well ahead off the rest of the wrold in 1939, and if peace had continued by 1943...who knows?

There would have been no Manhatten Project for a (very decisive) start.........

However things didn't turn out that way, and the war against Nazism was won at "Belecthly Park"(spelling?) witht the secret breakling of ULTRA.........

[Goldie fish]

There is an interesting series on Discovery channel(or one of them) at the moment called Luftwaffe 46, which shows how Germany were almost capable of launching bombing attacks on Mainland USA towards the end of the war.
Before thinking this is far fetched,remember that most of the scientists in the US missile,space and atomic programme of the 50s(and indeed the 40s) were former Nazi Scientists.
Long range bombers were developed(six engined condor variant) which had transatlantic ranges,and the ability to launch missiles from submarines was not far off.