Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 141
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: Could Hitler win war with Russia if he captured Moscow?

  1. #1 Could Hitler win war with Russia if he captured Moscow? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    If Hitler would start campaign against of Russia earlier and captured Moscow somewhere in autumn of 1941, would he won the campaign against of USSR? Or capturing Moscow and maybe few more cities to the East of Moscow wouldn't have crucial influence on his war in the East?


    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    If Hitler would start campaign against of Russia earlier and captured Moscow somewhere in autumn of 1941, would he won the campaign against of USSR? Or capturing Moscow and maybe few more cities to the East of Moscow wouldn't have crucial influence on his war in the East?
    Maybe.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    no
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Weren't the Russians retreating (and taking their industrial equipment with them!) and burning everything in their wake? If he arrived in Moscow, what would he really have? And then there was the problem with Russia's railway gauge different from Europe's. As it was, the Germans often used horses to haul artillery; not everything was mechanized.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Could he? That's beyond any of our comprehension, even the most logical of hypothesies cannot be said to be accurate. I must add though one mistake that he did make was in thinking that the west would originally unite and declare war on communism in the east; had he started the campaign earlier i'm of the opinion he would have actually been defeated earlier as even had he captured Moscow Russia is a huge country and Stalin was no push over.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    following the strategy of
    Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly
    and
    Mikhail Illarionovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov

    The Russian army didn't need to defeat the Germans.
    That's what Russian winters and the season of bad roads are for.
    All the Russian army had to do was to not lose the army.

    Moscow was a worthless bauble. Germany needed the oil fields.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    I guess that in order to win the war with Russia Hitler would need to start his invasion not later than May 15. Then his troops would approach Moscow at the end of October in best case rather then on December 5 as it happened. What other major mistakes were committed by Hitler during early campaign? For example, was it mistake to spend time and forces to capture Ukraine instead of going strait on Moscow as his general demanded? Did Hitler spend to much efforts and forces to capture Leningrad? Was it right to divide forces into North, Center and South groups? Is it true that Hitler ordered to produce more planes and navy ships instead of tanks for war with U.K. and U.S. before he captured Moscow because he was confident his troops will do it?
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,091
    I would say definitely yes. USSR was undoubtebly the crucial component to the fall of Nazi Germany.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    When we declared war on Japan, Hitler honored Germany's agreement with Japan and declared war on us.
    That was the big mistake. For Germany, the timing was terrible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Hard to tell. The USSR was already moving a lot of their industry West. Loosing the mass of Moscow rail junctions would have been a severe problem though. And of course the question comes to down whether the people's will would have been broken by the capture of Moscow. I don't think so because it had become, largely because of the German rough treatment of the Russian people a fight for mother Russia rather than the USSR.

    --
    Even without Japan's entry the US would have jumped into the war. We were already deep into lend-lease program to UK and USSR as well as under full mobilization of our military prior to Pearl Harbor. There's also some interesting stories about US WWI vintage military ships sent out to precipitate an international incident with Japan to stir American support.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    Napoleon conquered Moscow, it didn't do him any good. Its hard to see how it would have helped Hitler either. Sculptor has it right, the decisive objective was the caucasus oil fields.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    the decisive objective was the caucasus oil fields.
    So, he would better march to them in 1941 instead of Moscow? And what if Soviets would burn and destroy all Caucasus oil field before Germans capture them?
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    the decisive objective was the caucasus oil fields.
    So, he would better march to them in 1941 instead of Moscow? And what if Soviets would burn and destroy all Caucasus oil field before Germans capture them?
    Don't think it matters. No historian I've come across says Hitler lost because of insufficient oil. So it doesn't look as if getting the Caucasian oilfields would have made a decisive difference.

    As several contributors have pointed out, the only way Hitler could have won would have been to avoid taking on BOTH the USSR and the USA. Once he was committed to that he was always going to lose eventually. If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour it is interesting to speculate how Roosevelt and Churchill might have found another pretext for the USA to join the war against Germany. But I very much doubt that speculating about alternative strategies in the Russian campaign alone will produce a convincing rationale for Hitler winning.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    I’m not sure about this point, but wasn’t Stalin still purging/executing his best generals will into 1941? Would it make much impact to the organisation of the red army if Stalin hadn’t purged or stopped the purge sooner, due to Hitler invading sooner?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Moscow was a worthless bauble.
    Could be argued. Millions of Moscow inhabitants and factories would be prevented from helping Soviets. Railroad hub would be out of use. Lot of warm winter cloth could be captured. Millions of German soldiers could be stationed for winter quarters and use Moscow as a stronghold for next attacks to the East.
    Napoleon conquered Moscow, it didn't do him any good.
    True. But during Napoleon times both Moscow and numbers of invading troops were much smaller. Moscow was not even capital then. Napoleon was forced to retreat because his forces were too small in absolute numbers to control occupied territories and secure provision. Hitler seem to be more successful in occupation strategy and his troops didn't suffer so much from lack of food, for example.
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 26th, 2013 at 02:12 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I think Stalin would have had a much harder time marshaling his army if the chief functional elements of his government were disrupted. There was a saying about Stalin's leadership that went something like this: "It takes a brave man to join the Soviet military. It takes an even braver man to try and leave."

    What fear would have motivated Soviet soldiers to charge Nazi machine gun posts with a clip of ammo instead of a rifle (presuming to take the rifle from the man in front of him after he falls), if people weren't confident that Stalin could come after them in their homes?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What fear would have motivated Soviet soldiers to charge Nazi machine gun posts with a clip of ammo instead of a rifle (presuming to take the rifle from the man in front of him after he falls), if people weren't confident that Stalin could come after them in their homes?
    That and the NKVD "enforcement batallion" right behind the guys doing the charging.
    The ones who will definitely kill you if you move backwards, as opposed to the Germans who only might kill you if you move forwards.
    Having said that there was also a large element of patriotism involved - there was genuine hatred involved on that front, unlike, say, the Western Desert or Europe, where it was more a case of "just doing a job".
    exchemist and babe like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Simply taking Moscow would not have been enough in my opinion, I don't think there is any way the Nazis could have won against the Soviets. The only way the Nazis could have won is if they were treating Soviet workers better than Stalin had ever been treating them. Hitler may well have been seen as liberator rather than conqueror if he catered to the Soviet people. That, however, would be anathema to the Nazi war machine which relied on confiscation, looting, and forced labour to maintain status quo. About 33% of the forced labourers in Nazi work camps came from the USSR. That would have taken a major toll on the Nazi's war effort, would become a major problem for the accumulation of war resources, and possibly result in a resource deficit reducing the Nazi's ability to expand without serious economic repercussions - which I am quite sure could only be deferred and was inescapable in the first place.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    I think that in WWII many circumstances played against Nazis. For example Japan and Turkey could have easily enter war against USSR. If they did, do you think USSR would loose? It is claimed Hitler expected Japan enter war against USSR, if Hitler would capture Moscow. Why do you think Hitler didn't attempt to bomb Caucasus oil fields in the first few months of war? If he wasn't able to reach them soon, was not it logical to bomb them? As well as Volga basin oil fields?
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Well I think Sculptor hit the nail on the head in that the Nazi's were running out of resources and needed the oil. But going back to your original question, certainly I think the timing was an issue. If indeed Hilter had started his Russian campaign much earlier it might have had a significant impact, because as time dragged on the Nazi's got weaker and the Russians had had much more time to prepare. Whilst many point to the stand made at Stalingrad, the waste in human life to defend the city of Stalin's name as an act of vanity Stalin's part, the reality was that it was all about buying time for a Russian counter offensive. As to the question of whether such a stand might have been made at Moscow and whether the capturing of the city by the Nazi's would have been strategically important towards a Nazi victory over Russia, well let's just say I'm sceptical. This being said I find Lynx's suggestion of the city's importance as transport hub interesting, but I'm not really that sure ultimately on this one, again for the simple reason that throughout the early stages of WW2 Stalin had to have known that potentially it would be highly likely Hilter would eventially go after the Russian resources and everything depended from their perscpective of having enough time to prepare, so with this in mind even if the nazi's had taken such a major transport hub it would have likely just meant the Russians fell back further. In the end the Russians would have still made their counter attack, just in different places.

    Also when we consider historic stratergy, it seems the Russians may have relied on the tradional long hard winters and slash and burn policy of falling back, but by the time of WW2 the use of Aircraft and Mechanised Warfare meant that a German advance especially against little resistance could be made very quickly indeed, again reinforcing the need for preparation time against such a German assault. But also, unlike in previous times, the significance of Moscow was also much less, thus meaning that it's actual capture though being some what of a PR victory would have been unlikely alone to defeat the Russians. During the war Moscow underwent several drills and plans were in place for a city wide evacuation should the Nazi's break though the Russian defences.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Rasputitsa

    (memory is a peculiar beasty some days)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    My position about the Moscow rail junctions is hardly original but I'll try to lay it out. Referring to the map of of Russia's rail you see it's the most Eastern major node. Once Moscow is captures, effectively North to South lateral reinforcement of supplies and equipment stops--that includes lend lease and that precious oil from the South. North of Moscow it nearly completely shut down because of extensive swamps; the Russian Armies would have been reduced to mostly dismounted infantry warfare. It's a bit less of the problem in the South, where terrain is more favorable for armored vehicles across open terrain and improvised roads to supply them. The German generals understood the importance of Moscow as a transportation hub and strongly argued for its capture--of course they were overridden.
    cosmictraveler and Ascended like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Well I think Sculptor hit the nail on the head in that the Nazi's were running out of resources and needed the oil. But going back to your original question, certainly I think the timing was an issue. If indeed Hilter had started his Russian campaign much earlier it might have had a significant impact, because as time dragged on the Nazi's got weaker and the Russians had had much more time to prepare. Whilst many point to the stand made at Stalingrad, the waste in human life to defend the city of Stalin's name as an act of vanity Stalin's part, the reality was that it was all about buying time for a Russian counter offensive.
    Wise move for Stalin. Perhaps he aptly perceived that Hitler's main weakness was his incredible vanity, and so Hitler would easily be duped into thinking Stalingrad had more significance than it actually did.

    I doubt Stalin personally cared much about the city, other than its political value.

    As to the question of whether such a stand might have been made at Moscow and whether the capturing of the city by the Nazi's would have been strategically important towards a Nazi victory over Russia, well let's just say I'm sceptical. This being said I find Lynx's suggestion of the city's importance as transport hub interesting, but I'm not really that sure ultimately on this one, again for the simple reason that throughout the early stages of WW2 Stalin had to have known that potentially it would be highly likely Hilter would eventially go after the Russian resources and everything depended from their perscpective of having enough time to prepare, so with this in mind even if the nazi's had taken such a major transport hub it would have likely just meant the Russians fell back further. In the end the Russians would have still made their counter attack, just in different places.
    Stalingrad was decimated by the fighting, so if the stand had been made at Moscow instead of Stalingrad, them probably the result would have been the immediate de-fact loss of the city, because it would no longer be able to serve any purpose other than a battle ground.

    Also if the Soviets were pushed back from Moscow - The probably the Nazis wouldn't need to push them any further than that. Just dig in, set up barricades, and hold it, while their buddies focus on harvesting the oil out of the areas they had already captured.

    Ascended likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore Estheria Quintessimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    153
    I like the OP post. I have been thinking about this myself for a few years.

    It is an hypothetical idea... a 'What If?' question. which can sparkle many hypothetical well defended ideas about it.

    Here is my idea on How Hitler could have conquered Moscow and win the war.

    The biggest mistake Hitler made was invading Russia in the first place. Stalin still did not believe Germany would invade, even as the German troops were gathering at his border, the day before Barbarossa was initiated. Stalin still thought that Hitler would honor the agreement they made.

    Yeah, Russia was suffering horribly, by an inexperienced army, due to the fact Stalin had thousands of experienced officers killed, just to make sure he himself could stay in power. Hitler's Operation Barbarossa was well set up, but still not good enough. They thought they could be in Moscow well before the winter, but that did not happen. Pure arrogance on Hitler's side, suckerpunching himself in the face by invading Russia!! Russia is HUGE, the peoples well known with the cold environment and adapted to harsh living. The country is so large and difficult that it is a known fact that in some parts of Russia there were still villages that thought they had a Tsar in 1940!!! That is how difficult and large the country was.

    If he had been more patient,... he would have had a much larger army to defend Europa from any potential threat from the west. His other mistake was declaring war on the United States, after the Japanese bombed Pear Harbor.

    At that time there was still a general mood in USA politics not to be drawn in any new world war. After Pearl Harbor, Hitler should simply have said to the Japanese Empire: 'Screw you, I am not going to declare war!'

    How could Hitler have won the Russian campaign?

    By not declaring war against the USA. Who knows how global politics would have effected the European war then. There was a prefered stream in USA politics which prefered the USA being focussed inward. Kinda like the medieval China decision to not get involved in global politics and only focus in on itself. If Hitler had said to the USA 'oh dear those evil Japanese, we will assist you USA' he would probably not have been believed, but it would have given him more time and prevented the USA industrial machine turning out weapons and other resources against him. The USA was already helping out the UK and such, but by declaring war Hitler opened up more shit then he bargained for.
    By not invading Russia at the time that he did. He should have waited atleast a few more years. Untill that time he was sure any threat on mainland Europa was non existing or Russia becomming a real threat at his borders,... provided the latter would have happened anyway,... seeing Stalin his actions seemed to be focussed on securing his own position within Russia at that time.

    See, I really highly doubt Stalin would ever have attacked The Third Reich himself and surely never on his own! Stalin his only concern was consolidating his own power and legacy within Russia.

    Im guessing here... but in 1941 (at the start of Barbarossa) Hitler was 52 years, perhaps he could not gather the strength to wait, getting and feeling older. He was only in power in Germany for less then a decade at that time, unlike Musolini who had decades to build up the power base around him.

    Perhaps Hitler was impatient because he thought he did not have much time left, to complete what he wanted in his life.

    Last edited by Estheria Quintessimo; October 4th, 2013 at 04:27 PM. Reason: correcting a small grammatical error
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    107
    No. Russia at that time was a collection farming and industry people guided by a royal family which wouldn't have even been there except that they were royal.Hitler was a nazi.If he had taken Moscow he wouldn't have kept it,he would not have been tolerated by the russians.To the russians Hitler was just a misguided tourist.If today Hitler the little creap with his paint on mustash were to show up in russia ,he woulden,t be allowed in bars due to his past escapades.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by sapien View Post
    No. Russia at that time was a collection farming and industry people guided by a royal family which wouldn't have even been there except that they were royal.
    Crap.
    Stalin wasn't royal.

    If he had taken Moscow he wouldn't have kept it,he would not have been tolerated by the russians.
    Right.
    Because we all know that no conquered city/ territory ever stayed in its invaders' hands, don't we?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    107
    Sorry time frames might have been wrong. Stalin too was a russian.Also Stalin might have been an almost bigger creep than Hitler.Could Stalin win against russia if he took Moscow. Was this a creep competition ?A lot of russians didn't like Stalin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore Estheria Quintessimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by sapien View Post
    No. Russia at that time was a collection farming and industry people guided by a royal family which wouldn't have even been there except that they were royal.Hitler was a nazi.If he had taken Moscow he wouldn't have kept it,he would not have been tolerated by the russians.To the russians Hitler was just a misguided tourist.If today Hitler the little creap with his paint on mustash were to show up in russia ,he woulden,t be allowed in bars due to his past escapades.
    Sorry time frames might have been wrong. Stalin too was a russian.Also Stalin might have been an almost bigger creep than Hitler.Could Stalin win against russia if he took Moscow. Was this a creep competition ?A lot of russians didn't like Stalin.
    You sh!tting me?

    I honoustly request you tell me how old you are, and what education level you have.
    What is your point trying to contribute to an honoust post by the OP, with utter crap of obvious stupidity.

    Of the 7.1 billion people on this planet,... excluding babies and people who never had an education,... you must be the only person today, who thinks the Tsars still ruled Russia in 1941.

    Here is an "actual count" website, of how many people live on this planet:
    World Population Clock: 7 Billion People (2013) - Worldometers

    They say an idiot is born every minute. You are either trolling, or you were one of these idiots.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by sapien View Post
    Stalin too was a russian.
    Stalin was Georgian.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    107
    Perhaps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore Estheria Quintessimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by sapien View Post
    Perhaps.
    Fnck you ... stupid fncking troll. Piss off, unless you have something usefull to contribute.

    I really do not get it, the purpose of trolling.

    'Duh, I am a stupid fncking moron.' You know better but decide to be an ignorant b!tch.

    Perhaps you trolls get your kicks of getting people mad at ya?

    Well that is pointless, as it is fact is that people on fora are mad against alot of people on the fora all the time. However they tend to hold back politely and respond respectfully.

    I have been on this particular forum for only a few weeks,... and there have already been several people I would have prefered to use other language against,... then the language I eventually decided on using.

    You are not even a smart troll. At this time I gather your intellectual capacity around 100. I would need more trolling to make it more specific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I agree Sapien is trolling and been sent away for a week.

    Estheria, while we applaud your sincerity, please tone it down a bit and report the post with a short explanation. F bombs aren't necessary.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Wise move for Stalin. Perhaps he aptly perceived that Hitler's main weakness was his incredible vanity, and so Hitler would easily be duped into thinking Stalingrad had more significance than it actually did.
    Certainly Stalin did seem to get the better over Hitler when it came to the big decisions, I wonder perhaps if his biggest victory was perhaps initially diverting Hitlers attention away from Russia by agreeing a pact to carve up Poland between the Nazi's and the Russians. Certainly it's interesting to speculate whether if this pact had not been forth coming if the Nazi's might have rolled across Poland then carried on with a campaign to take Russia, whilst largely ignoring the declarations of war by the French and British. Certainly if this had of been the case the war might have had a very different outcome if speculate that an earlier Nazi offensive against Russia might have indeed had the necessary resources to get the job done, then enabling the Nazi's to have all of Russia's vast resources for a Western offensive. Surely with the Nazi's having enough resources and only having to fight on one front at time, this assuming a mere holding action of a defensive possition against any initial French or British threat which is surely plausable given that neither country could have really threatened the vast Nazi war machine at the start of the war, would have given them a far greater chance for victory over all the allies.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Wise move for Stalin. Perhaps he aptly perceived that Hitler's main weakness was his incredible vanity, and so Hitler would easily be duped into thinking Stalingrad had more significance than it actually did.
    Certainly Stalin did seem to get the better over Hitler when it came to the big decisions, I wonder perhaps if his biggest victory was perhaps initially diverting Hitlers attention away from Russia by agreeing a pact to carve up Poland between the Nazi's and the Russians. Certainly it's interesting to speculate whether if this pact had not been forth coming if the Nazi's might have rolled across Poland then carried on with a campaign to take Russia, whilst largely ignoring the declarations of war by the French and British. Certainly if this had of been the case the war might have had a very different outcome if speculate that an earlier Nazi offensive against Russia might have indeed had the necessary resources to get the job done, then enabling the Nazi's to have all of Russia's vast resources for a Western offensive. Surely with the Nazi's having enough resources and only having to fight on one front at time, this assuming a mere holding action of a defensive possition against any initial French or British threat which is surely plausable given that neither country could have really threatened the vast Nazi war machine at the start of the war, would have given them a far greater chance for victory over all the allies.
    Interesting speculation but (and albeit this is my speculative antithesis) had Hitler invaded Poland by himself not only would it have been a much calmer incentive for France and Britain to quickly repel the Nazis but had they succeeded declaring war on Russia probably would have resorted in an incredibly quick and humiliating defeat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    What do you think would happen if Hitler instead attacking Poland or USSR decided to secure lebensraum and resources in Latin America? I guess it would not be difficult to capture and control entire South America for Third Reich? I think one of the mistakes Hitler made was outdated thinking that his empire should expend for account of territories adjacent to it. But look at British or Spanish empires. They thrived by been oversea empires.
    Last edited by Stanley514; October 5th, 2013 at 09:53 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    What do you think would happen if Hitler instead attacking Poland or USSR decided to secure lebensraum and resources in Latin America? I guess it would not be difficult to capture and control entire South America for Third Reich? I think one of the mistakes Hitler made was outdated thinking that his empire should expend for account of territories adjacent to it. But look at British or Spanish empires. They thrived by been oversea empires.
    Except that Germany was too late to take part in that race.
    Any attempted invasion of South America, even disregrading opposition from the countries so invaded, would have been nigh on impossible.
    Germany did not possess the requisite transport fleet, and even if it had its navy wasn't up to the task of defending said transports.
    A maxim of the (British) Royal Navy, more or less from its inception up to the start of WWII, was that it be of a size and strength to take on any two other navies around the world at the same time.
    Running battles across the Atlantic was a no no for Germany, especially if it were the one trying to keep convoys intact.
    Ascended likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Running battles across the Atlantic was a no no for Germany, especially if it were the one trying to keep convoys intact.
    Intact from whom? From Latin Americans? I have doubts that any LA country had fleet to threaten Hitler. Hitler could just build some transport ships, it was not a problem. Think of Japan which in 1930-th conquered China, Korea and largest parts of SA Asia and even defeated some British garrisons there. Germany was even more powerful than Japan. They could occupy some small LA country for beginning, for example Uruguay and accumulate lot of forces there. And after spread into Argentina, Brazil and Chili. I guess it would be a way easier task than Barbarossa plan. In any case I think that South America was more attractive to Hitler as lebensraum than cold Russia with its poor infrastructures and muddy roads. What is concerning to Russian oil, it is not necessarily would be so much critical resource if WWII would not start. Hitler could just purchase lot of oil from Russia or other countries.
    Last edited by Stanley514; October 6th, 2013 at 12:53 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Intact from whom?
    Which part of the wording "British Royal Navy" did you not see?
    Do you seriously think that the UK, or even the US for that matter, would NOT lend a hand in the event of Hitler attempting to invade South America?

    Hitler could just build some transport ships, it was not a problem.
    "Just build"?
    Germany had no tradition of amphibious warfare, let alone design and construction of amphibious warfare vessels.

    They could occupy some small LA country for beginning, for example Uruguay and accumulate lot of forces there.
    Not without shipping them across the Atlantic.

    I guess it would be a way easier task than Barbarossa plan.
    Utter crap.
    The logistics problems would magnify exponentially.

    In any case I think that South America was more attractive to Hitler
    Obviouslynot since he went into Russia.

    as lebensraum than cold Russia
    "Cold Russia"?
    Learn some geography.

    Hitler could just purchase lot of oil from Russia or other countries.
    Except that Hitler was already buying oil, and much else, from Russia before he invaded.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; May 6th, 2014 at 04:01 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Do you seriously think that the UK, or even the US for that matter, would NOT lend a hand in the event of Hitler attempting to invade South America?
    Why exactly would they? U.K. and U.S. had not been tied by any military pacts with South Am., U.S. didn't proclaim war on Hitler even when he was in war with British and bombed London. Why would they care more about South Am than Britain? As I know neither U.S. or U.K. had planes to colonize South Am., they would realize it would take many decades if not hundreds of years for Germans to colonize it to some large extent. On the place of Hitler I would of course try to settle South Am. case and promise to U.S. good contribution. Principally Hitler may not even openly invade South Am., but plan some covert operation. For example he may sand couple of millions of Germans in Uruguay under mask of immigrants and instruct them to organize revolt. He could supply them with weapon. And establish a puppet states there. After German base on land would be complete he could plan farther expansion.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    "Why exactly would they? U.K. and U.S. had not been tied by any military pacts with South Am."
    Monroe doctrine has been a guiding influence on American politics since the early 19th century.

    But the whole discussion is rather silly. Germany didn't have the Navy, nor ports to support any such operation, the Italians were largely incompetent and the French, who had an excellent Navy in a rather amazing example of scorched Earth, had scuttled nearly their entire fleet before the Germans could capture it.

    And even if initially successful, the American's Silent Service which turned out to be what probably the most effective arm of anyone's military from WWII, would have completely demolished any logistics between SA and Europe.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    and the French, who had an excellent Navy in a rather amazing example of scorched Earth, had scuttled nearly their entire fleet before the Germans could capture it.

    Apart from the potentially rather effective warships that the Royal Navy sank for them.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    But the whole discussion is rather silly. Germany didn't have the Navy
    If Hitler would settle the deal with U.S., the only he would need to built for invasion in SA is just large transport ships. I cannot believe it would be too expensive. Even Japan had in those times few aircraft carriers which are way more expensive than transport ships. During WWII U.S. was capable transport many thousands of its troops through Pacific and won battles against Japan as well as transport millions of tons of cargo to USSR. Germany had developed Navy building industry. Their submarine fleet was out of competition. They had large ships and could easily build them.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    "Why exactly would they? U.K. and U.S. had not been tied by any military pacts with South Am."
    Monroe doctrine has been a guiding influence on American politics since the early 19th century.


    Yeah. I'm thinking that, according to the Monroe doctrine, an attempt to conquer parts of South America would have been viewed as an act of war against the USA.

    Monroe Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Stanley: The USA has claimed the sole right to act militarily in South America since 1823. In a way, it's like the USA considers the whole continent to be its own, but doesn't want to rule it.


    But the whole discussion is rather silly. Germany didn't have the Navy, nor ports to support any such operation, the Italians were largely incompetent and the French, who had an excellent Navy in a rather amazing example of scorched Earth, had scuttled nearly their entire fleet before the Germans could capture it.
    If that is true, then how did they ever get a foothold in North Africa?



    And even if initially successful, the American's Silent Service which turned out to be what probably the most effective arm of anyone's military from WWII, would have completely demolished any logistics between SA and Europe.


    Now here's the odd thing. What if Hitler had negotiated with the USA for permission to exploit some of these nations? The USA was still very racist back then. They might not have minded Hitler rounding up South Americans and throwing them in concentration camps.

    The main obstacle, however, is that South American territories don't make very good Lebensraum. Too hot and humid. Argentina was already very friendly with Germany (at least enough that a lot of Nazi war criminals would see fit to hide there after the war.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Yeah. I'm thinking that, according to the Monroe doctrine, an attempt to conquer parts of South America would have been viewed as an act of war against the USA.
    Then we have one more interesting scenario: if the Reich would invade SA and US proclaim war on him, would Britain and France support U.S.? If not, then U.S. would be alone to fight both Japan and Germany on both sides. German submarine fleet would sink many U.S. ships and create total blockade of U.S. What would be outcome?
    The main obstacle, however, is that South American territories don't make very good Lebensraum. Too hot and humid.
    There are plenty of places which are not extremely hot. For example: Caracas - temperature stands around 22 centigrade around whole year. San Paolo - rarely exceeds 30 centigrade. Santiago - rarely exceeds 35 c-g. Montevideo enjoys a mild humid subtropical climate.
    Last edited by Stanley514; October 6th, 2013 at 09:34 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    German submarine fleet would sink many U.S. ships and create total blockade of U.S.
    What nonsense.
    The USN would be more or less operating in its own heavily-guarded coastal waters (or coastal waters further south) and those waters would be covered by constant air patrols. That's not good for submarines.
    Hitler would also have to have changed the construction priorities and manufacture more (and better) ocean-going subs - those he did have could only reach the US coast by travelling on the surface for entirety of the journey.
    keeseguy likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    German submarine fleet would sink many U.S. ships and create total blockade of U.S.
    What nonsense.
    The USN would be more or less operating in its own heavily-guarded coastal waters (or coastal waters further south) and those waters would be covered by constant air patrols. That's not good for submarines.
    Hitler would also have to have changed the construction priorities and manufacture more (and better) ocean-going subs - those he did have could only reach the US coast by travelling on the surface for entirety of the journey.
    Just to add to that, the German U boats enjoyed success during the early phase of the war due mainly to the element of suprise, the allies weren't used to the tactics of massed U boats attacks and these attacks did serious damage to the Altlantic convoys. But the thing was the U boats were enjoying most of this success against ill defended merchant vessels, mostly when they came up against naval war vessels they didn't fair to well. But even this success was short lived after the allies adapted their tactics and actually went on the hunt for the U boats. Warships with depth charges reeked havoc on the U boats to the point where they became completly ineffective. Like with much of the Nazi's initial military success the advantages of the U boats were purely down to the way in which they were used against unprepared foe's, this was never an advantage that could be either maintained or sustained for a long campaign as the Nazi's found out. It was just not feasible to think that U boats alone could have ever stopped the US Navy warships leaving their territorial waters.

    http://www.uboat.net/
    Last edited by Ascended; October 7th, 2013 at 01:57 PM. Reason: added link
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Warships with depth charges reeked havoc on the U boats to the point where they became completly ineffective. Like with much of the Nazi's initial military success the advantages of the U boats were purely down to the way in which they were used against unprepared foe's, this was never an advantage that could be either maintained or sustained for a long campaign as the Nazi's found out. It was just not feasible to think that U boats alone could have ever stopped the US Navy warships leaving their territorial waters.

    The U-boat Wars 1939-1945 (Kriegsmarine) and 1914-1918 (Kaiserliche Marine) and Allied Warships of WWII - uboat.net
    Aircraft as well, which were able to find with search radars, continue to follow, do their own attacks which accounted for nearly as many U-boats sank as destroyers, and vector in destroyers to complete the job. U boats, and the Japanese would find out the hard way with their excellent subs, were generally too slow to be very effective against surface Navy vessels--they were simply too slow to follow and forced to rely on extremely risky opportunity ambushes.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Do you think that Americans would agree to sacrifice couple of millions of its soldiers to fight Hitler invading SA?
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Do you think that Americans would agree to sacrifice couple of millions of its soldiers to fight Hitler invading SA?
    The Germans didn't have sea logistic capabilities to get anywhere near that sort of military force in SA--your premise is logistically unrealistic. They could barely even supply their own submarines outside of their European bases, which was trivially small task compared to moving an entire military. And yes absolutely the US was willing to sacrifice a generation to the war effort. FDR had decided to fight Germany long before Pearl.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Came across a fascinating PDF on the German capabilities during WW2 with copious amounts of really interesting information and facts;

    Extract: "The advantage see-sawed several times as WW-II wore on. In its last year,
    Germany lost over 270 U-Boats while sinking fewer than half that many Allied
    ships. U-Boats failed to stop troopships from crossing first the Atlantic and
    then the English Channel when the liberation of France began in June 1944.
    By war’s end in mid 1945, German U-Boats had sunk

    3000 Allied ships, less than 5%
    of the ships built during the war, and none of them a loaded troop transport. 783 of 1170
    U-Boats launched had been sunk, mostly by Americans, British & Canadians.
    Of about 37,000 Germans who went to sea in U-Boats, about 28,000 never
    returned. But first they killed over 40,000 Allied seamen among whom only a
    few thousand were naval personnel."


    http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/BlaUboat.pdf
    stander-j likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    190
    Hitler certainly could have defeated Russia had he captured Moscow! However the victory probably would have been short-lived.

    Moscow was (and still is) the heart of Russia and capturing the city would have provided much needed food, armament, shelter, and airfields for the invading Nazi army. But Russians are very determined people, and I think they would have fought an aggressive guerrilla-war with and around Moscow. Considering the factories and man-power they possessed it would likely have been a war of attrition and with the German Western front under constant threat there is no way they would have been able to hold the city for very long.
    [Analyst/Engineer/Independent]

    "SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty88 View Post
    Hitler certainly could have defeated Russia had he captured Moscow! However the victory probably would have been short-lived..... there is no way they would have been able to hold the city for very long
    So what you're saying is: Russia wouldn't have been defeated if Moscow was taken.

    Moscow was (and still is) the heart of Russia and capturing the city would have provided much needed food, armament, shelter, and airfields
    Armament factories had been moved to the Urals.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty88 View Post
    Hitler certainly could have defeated Russia had he captured Moscow! However the victory probably would have been short-lived..... there is no way they would have been able to hold the city for very long
    So what you're saying is: Russia wouldn't have been defeated if Moscow was taken.

    Moscow was (and still is) the heart of Russia and capturing the city would have provided much needed food, armament, shelter, and airfields
    Armament factories had been moved to the Urals.
    Armament factories were indeed moved away from Moscow, but existing factories and buildings that could have been used to produce armaments were still around. With the zeal and efficiency of the Nazi forces they could have quickly captured existing stock and refurbished existing buildings.
    [Analyst/Engineer/Independent]

    "SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty88 View Post
    but existing factories and buildings that could have been used to produce armaments were still around.
    Right...
    Moscow's factories were hastily converted to military tasks: one automobile factory was turned into a submachine gun armory, a clock factory manufactured mine detonators, the chocolate factory shifted to food production for the front, and automobile repair stations worked fixing damaged tanks and military vehicles.

    The Russians managed to make ad-hoc SMG factories. And, given the manufacturing differences between Soviet and German SMGs...
    Regardless, nothing substantial.

    With the zeal and efficiency of the Nazi forces they could have quickly captured existing stock and refurbished existing buildings.
    "Zeal and efficiency"?
    Are we talking about the same people that managed to have, for example, 3 different medium AA gun projects - army, navy and air force, all running at the same time and competing for resources while steadfastly NOT cross-pollinating research and solutions?
    The same people that managed to expend f*ck knows how much on essentially useless V2 missiles?
    Those people?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    wall street
    Posts
    29
    You are right .The nazis had a good war machine as it goes. They probably could have concured any single country.As for Hitler himself,the little guy with the painted on mustash,I'm not so sure.All Hitler really wanted was for the whole world to be like a peacefull small town in Germany.Where could he have gone wrong?At first it seems a though Hitler wanted to help the world and he knew he could do it.But first of course he would need a master arien race.So far so good.He was pritty peacfull at first.Then he changed tracks and became strictly a war machine.When he changed his looks changed his ideals changed and I think his hight even changed.He got taller.What I'm getting to is that Hitler might have been a different person.A stunt double or an understudy if you will.So Hitler who is say not Hitler entered Russia.Now who at that time would be capable of switching the people around without being noticed and wanted germany in a loosing war.The only thing that comes to mind is Stalin's Russia.So Hitler might not have ever entered Russia.So it should be corrected that the Nasis would have won the war with Russia.But not nessesarily Hitler himself.dwdtt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs View Post
    All Hitler really wanted was for the whole world to be like a peacefull small town in Germany.
    No.

    At first it seems a though Hitler wanted to help the world
    No.

    He was pritty peacfull at first.
    No.

    When he changed his looks changed his ideals changed and I think his hight even changed.He got taller.
    What?

    What I'm getting to is that Hitler might have been a different person.A stunt double or an understudy if you will.
    Have you forgotten to take your meds today?

    Now who at that time would be capable of switching the people around without being noticed and wanted germany in a loosing war.The only thing that comes to mind is Stalin's Russia.So Hitler might not have ever entered Russia.So it should be corrected that the Nasis would have won the war with Russia.But not nessesarily Hitler himself.dwdtt?
    Whut?
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; October 11th, 2013 at 06:14 AM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty88 View Post
    but existing factories and buildings that could have been used to produce armaments were still around.
    Right...
    Moscow's factories were hastily converted to military tasks: one automobile factory was turned into a submachine gun armory, a clock factory manufactured mine detonators, the chocolate factory shifted to food production for the front, and automobile repair stations worked fixing damaged tanks and military vehicles.

    The Russians managed to make ad-hoc SMG factories. And, given the manufacturing differences between Soviet and German SMGs...
    Regardless, nothing substantial.

    With the zeal and efficiency of the Nazi forces they could have quickly captured existing stock and refurbished existing buildings.
    "Zeal and efficiency"?
    Are we talking about the same people that managed to have, for example, 3 different medium AA gun projects - army, navy and air force, all running at the same time and competing for resources while steadfastly NOT cross-pollinating research and solutions?
    The same people that managed to expend f*ck knows how much on essentially useless V2 missiles?
    Those people?
    The Nazi war-machine was incredibly industrious, and would have been more successful had they not been hampered by Hitlers red-tape. V2's were not essentially useless as they did hit targets (albeit by accident) and instill fear in the British people. The German Wehrmacht, specifically the the Luftwaffe was ahead the Allies in terms of technology for years before we ever caught up. The Nazi war-machine was also easily the most zealous of any of the European powers. Have you not heard of the SS? The German army was well-disciplined and loyal to their cause. If they didn't have a resources, they took it then enslaved local citizens rather than using their own people or soldiers. In rudimentary terms, they were efficient and no other country other than the Japanese can compare in terms of fanaticism and zeal.
    [Analyst/Engineer/Independent]

    "SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    In any case on the place of Hitler I would not risk attack USSR without securing firm superiority in tanks and planes (regardless of their quality) at least 1:2. And desirably almost the same amount of military personnel. When Hitler attacked USSR he didn't have principal superiority neither in technics or numbers. It was almost insane to rely only on surprise attack.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty88 View Post
    The Nazi war-machine was incredibly industrious
    Industrious != efficient.

    and would have been more successful had they not been hampered by Hitlers red-tape.
    Or bickering between "internal fiefdoms".
    Or crackpot schemes.

    V2's were not essentially useless as they did hit targets (albeit by accident) and instill fear in the British people.
    Essentially useless militarily. Given their cost and the overall damage they caused.

    The German Wehrmacht, specifically the the Luftwaffe was ahead the Allies in terms of technology for years before we ever caught up.
    In which fields?
    Behind on jet engines, behind on radar (and electronic warfare generally), way behind on strategic bombers, way behind on production, way ahead on multiple (and fruitless) pie in the sky projects.

    In rudimentary terms, they were efficient and no other country other than the Japanese can compare in terms of fanaticism and zeal.
    "Efficient" isn't an absolute. Nor is/ was it confined to Germany.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    If the Nazi V2 program had indeed been successful, worked in the way they had planned for it, then it would have been a formidable threat to allies that combined with development of nuclear techology could been very similar to the ICBM programs that all of the of world's nuclear powers now use to defend themselves, so essentially it was a program decades ahead of it's time. Luckily for the allies was the fact that Hitler personally held back vital development work on many of Germany's ET (Emergent Technologies) programs in order to push resources into tank, U-boat, aircraft and ammunition production.

    However had Hitler not held back such works then the Nazi rocket programs and also many of German 'Wonder Weapons' seen towards the end of the war might have emerged several years earlier and have had a far greater significance in determining the outcome of WW2. Again it was a person failing in Hitler's ability as a leader and commander of his armed forced that led to us(the Allies) being let off the hook in many respects.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    If the Nazi V2 program had indeed been successful, worked in the way they had planned for it, then it would have been a formidable threat to allies that combined with development of nuclear techology could been very similar to the ICBM programs
    Apart from the slight problem that the V-2, as it was built and projected, was incapable of carrying a warhead of that weight.

    However had Hitler not held back such works then the Nazi rocket programs and also many of German 'Wonder Weapons' seen towards the end of the war might have emerged several years earlier
    Hitler's interference was minimal with regard to to the V-2, and he was one of the people pushing for "wunderwaffen".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    If the Nazi V2 program had indeed been successful, worked in the way they had planned for it, then it would have been a formidable threat to allies that combined with development of nuclear techology could been very similar to the ICBM programs
    Apart from the slight problem that the V-2, as it was built and projected, was incapable of carrying a warhead of that weight.

    However had Hitler not held back such works then the Nazi rocket programs and also many of German 'Wonder Weapons' seen towards the end of the war might have emerged several years earlier
    Hitler's interference was minimal with regard to to the V-2, and he was one of the people pushing for "wunderwaffen".
    Nazi regime ear documents show that the V2 was planned to be much bigger and and more powerful than many of the rockets actually launched, also that it was part of a strategic plan to deliver weapons of mass destruction. The fact is the project was never completed because many of resources needed were only ploughed in towards the end of war.
    During the early phase of the war Hitler himself was less concerned with many of the new weapons, it was only after significant military failings on the battlefield that Hilter ordered that many of the resources he had personally diverted away go back to the wonder weapons programs, in fact it was at Hermann Göring's urging that many of the resources needed for the Nazi rocket program weren't forthcoming because he needed them for aircraft production.

    One of Hitlers's peronsal orders that caused major delays to Germany's wonder weapons was issued on the 11th february 1940, this decree was to put a stop to many of the most advanced new technology projects, this was because it required that any new project that couldn't deliver weapons into the field within 1 year had to be stopped immediately, this was a fated decision that was to hold up many of these new weapons for years.
    Last edited by Ascended; October 12th, 2013 at 03:50 PM. Reason: additional information
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Nazi regime ear documents show that the V2 was planned to be much bigger and and more powerful than many of the rockets actually launched
    Like the two-stage A9/A-10.
    But it was still the same warhead size.
    I have a number of reproductions of the contemporary documents, and none of them indicate a potential (or even planned) ~5 tonne payload (until you get to the A12 - which was planned as a surface to orbit spacecraft, not a ballistic missile).

    During the early phase of the war Hitler himself was less concerned with many of the new weapons
    He merely pointed out that the V-2 - as proposed - was nothing more than a very expensive slightly larger artillery shell.

    One of Hitlers's peronsal orders that caused major delays to Germany's wonder weapons was issued on the 11th february 1940, this decree was to put a stop to many of the most advanced new technology projects, this was because it required that any new project that couldn't deliver weapons into the field within 1 year had to be stopped immediately, this was a fated decision that was to hold up many of these new weapons for years.
    In 1940 there was no requirement for any weapon of the nature of the V-2 (or other wunderwaffen): the planned war was against France/ UK 1 and then Russia (and the order related to development work on aircraft only).
    And, given that, at the time, Russia was seen as a "walkover" (or at least significantly less of a problem than it turned out to be), what they had, or what was in process, was sufficient.
    Getting sucked into a war against the US wasn't on the cards at that time.
    Ergo: cancelling the V-2 and other long-term projects was neither a problem or mistake.

    1 It could be argued that the surprisingly fast (to everyone, Germans especially included) victory in France 2 precipitated later errors - not least of judgement of capability.
    2 Because, one more time, Blitzkrieg was a complete and total myth.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Nazi regime ear documents show that the V2 was planned to be much bigger and and more powerful than many of the rockets actually launched
    Like the two-stage A9/A-10.
    But it was still the same warhead size.
    I have a number of reproductions of the contemporary documents, and none of them indicate a potential (or even planned) ~5 tonne payload (until you get to the A12 - which was planned as a surface to orbit spacecraft, not a ballistic missile).

    During the early phase of the war Hitler himself was less concerned with many of the new weapons
    He merely pointed out that the V-2 - as proposed - was nothing more than a very expensive slightly larger artillery shell.

    One of Hitlers's peronsal orders that caused major delays to Germany's wonder weapons was issued on the 11th february 1940, this decree was to put a stop to many of the most advanced new technology projects, this was because it required that any new project that couldn't deliver weapons into the field within 1 year had to be stopped immediately, this was a fated decision that was to hold up many of these new weapons for years.
    In 1940 there was no requirement for any weapon of the nature of the V-2 (or other wunderwaffen): the planned war was against France/ UK 1 and then Russia (and the order related to development work on aircraft only).
    And, given that, at the time, Russia was seen as a "walkover" (or at least significantly less of a problem than it turned out to be), what they had, or what was in process, was sufficient.
    Getting sucked into a war against the US wasn't on the cards at that time.
    Ergo: cancelling the V-2 and other long-term projects was neither a problem or mistake.

    1 It could be argued that the surprisingly fast (to everyone, Germans especially included) victory in France 2 precipitated later errors - not least of judgement of capability.
    2 Because, one more time, Blitzkrieg was a complete and total myth.

    Ok let's work backwards here "Because, one more time, Blitzkrieg was a complete and total myth.", it seems here that you are expressing doubts over the idea that Germany could indeed actually conduct lightening warfare, perhaps a little more clarity here would allow for fully understanding the point you are trying to express.

    "It could be argued that the surprisingly fast (to everyone, Germans especially included) victory in France 2 precipitated later errors - not least of judgement of capability", this is conjecture that I would certainly concure is a strong possibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    I have a number of reproductions of the contemporary documents, and none of them indicate a potential (or even planned) ~5 tonne payload (until you get to the A12 - which was planned as a surface to orbit spacecraft, not a ballistic missile).
    I think this is possibly slightly disingenuous as a true representation of how the Nazi high command saw the potential usage of the V2 and successive rocket weapons. Certainly by the time of the V2's battlefield deployment the Nazi's were already working on a nuclear weapon of their own and had ambitions to to utilize the V2 as a delivery method. The fact that Von Braun claimed to have visions of a rocket for space delivery purposes doesn't affect the way in which his Nazi overlords wanted to use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    In 1940 there was no requirement for any weapon of the nature of the V-2 (or other wunderwaffen): the planned war was against France/ UK 1 and then Russia (and the order related to development work on aircraft only).
    This order covered many of the advanced projects being worked on either directly or that indirectly came under auspices of the Luftwaffe, this is how and why Göring was able exert his influence with Hitler, Göring wanted more planes and didn't want his resources being diverted for time consuming and costly advanced weapon projects and Hitler agreed with him, it was only relatively later on when Germany's military success was waning that Hitler ordered resources from the Luftwaffe to be put back into projects like the V2 and it's ilk, it was only after this that he promised the German People all these new wonder weapons to reign terror upon the allies. But this is just one example how Hilter's personal intervention held back technological progress, but certainly not the only example and similar orders were also issued to the army and navy.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Ok let's work backwards here "Because, one more time, Blitzkrieg was a complete and total myth.", it seems here that you are expressing doubts over the idea that Germany could indeed actually conduct lightening warfare, perhaps a little more clarity here would allow for fully understanding the point you are trying to express.
    No, I'm not expressing doubt at all. I'm pointing that "blitzkrieg" as a tactic/ strategy/ concept did not exist.
    At no time was anything like "blitzkrieg" formulated, proposed or used by the Germans.
    Contemporary German documents show this quite clearly.
    Or even:
    Many historians now hold the position that blitzkrieg was not a military theory, and the campaigns conducted by the German military in 1939 to circa, 1942 (with the exception of Operation Barbarossa) were improvised invasions put together and modified at the last moment and therefore was not a proper military strategy.
    Wiki.
    And, in fact, Len Deighton pointed much of this out in his book Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk, noting that analysis of battles of the period shows they were actually old-style kesselschlacht (particularly Poland) or simply "ordinary" (encounter/ envelopment/ breakthrough) battles that just happened to have a faster pace due to mechanisation/ motorisation.

    Certainly by the time of the V2's battlefield deployment the Nazi's were already working on a nuclear weapon of their own
    When it was apparent that the nuclear energy project would not make a decisive contribution to ending the war in the near term, control of the KWIP was returned in January 1942
    On 4 June 1942... Speer, regarding the nuclear energy project, had decided its continuation merely for the aim of energy production.
    I.e. nearly a full year before the V-2 was declared ready the Germans had abandoned nuclear weapons as contributing to the war.

    and had ambitions to to utilize the V2 as a delivery method.
    Source please.

    This order covered many of the advanced projects being worked on either directly or that indirectly came under auspices of the Luftwaffe, this is how and why Göring was able exert his influence with Hitler, Göring wanted more planes and didn't want his resources being diverted for time consuming and costly advanced weapon projects and Hitler agreed with him, it was only relatively later on when Germany's military success was waning that Hitler ordered resources from the Luftwaffe to be put back into projects like the V2 and it's ilk, it was only after this that he promised the German People all these new wonder weapons to reign terror upon the allies. But this is just one example how Hilter's personal intervention held back technological progress, but certainly not the only example and similar orders were also issued to the army and navy.
    Could you please explain how an order given in 1940 had an effect on a "weapon" that wasn't declared (practically) ready (by von Braun no less ) until September '43?
    Especially as the V-2 was an army project.

    To be frank I'm seeing a great deal of exposition and few corroborating links.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    In 1940 there was no requirement for any weapon of the nature of the V-2 (or other wunderwaffen)
    To start with you seem mistaken about the Rocket and wonder weapons programs in terms of dates, many of these programs were already in the pipeline even before the war started in 1939, attested in his memoirs by Albert Speer, famous for being Hitlers architect but also Germany's Minister for Armaments, wrote;

    "Ever since the winter of 1939, I had been closely associated with the Peenemunde development centre, although at first all I was doing was meeting its construction needs. I liked mingling with the circle of non-political young scientists and inventors headed by Werner von Braun - twenty-seven years old, purposeful, a man realistically at home in the future. It was extraordinary that so young and untried a team should be allowed to pursue a project costing hundreds of millions of marks and whose realization seemed far away.

    My sympathy stood them in good stead when in the late fall of 1939 Hitler crossed the rocket project off his list of urgent undertakings and thus automatically cut off its labour and materials. By tacit agreement with the Army Ordnance Office, I continued to build the Peenemunde installations without its approval - a liberty that probably no one but myself could have taken."

    So yes the V2 came under army command, but many resources and scientists that had previously been dirverted away from the project and into the Luftwaffe, the 1940 11th February order shows how Hitler's intervention was leading to advanced programs being held up. Speer himself clearly speaks of Hitler's plan's for cutting the rocket development programs.

    So it clearly demonstrates that what I had indeed stated about Hitler's intervention leading to delays in wonder weapons programs and resources being diverted away from them is factually correct.

    Sources:
    Inside the Third Reich: Albert Speer
    Secret Weapons: Technology, Science and the Race to Win World War II: Brian Ford
    Rocket and the Reich: Peenemunde and the Coming of the Ballistic Missile Era: Michael Neufeld
    German National Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power 1939–1949: Mark Walker
    Heisenberg and the Nazi Bomb Project: Paul Lawrence Rose
    Most secret war: Reginald V. Jones
    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...3a05p_0001.htm
    Hitlers Bombe: Rainer Karlsch

    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    To start with you seem mistaken about the Rocket and wonder weapons programs in terms of dates, many of these programs were already in the pipeline even before the war started in 1939
    I don't know what you're reading but I am aware that the V-2 was started well before the war kicked off.
    That doesn't alter the fact that V-2 was not a requirement for the war as it was planned. It was seen, and promoted, as merely "long-range artillery" And even from the start (1936) Dornberger's "objective was to field the new
    weapon by 1943".
    (Quote from Osprey New Vanguard book V-2 Ballistic Missile 1942-52, page 4).

    So yes the V2 came under army command, but many resources and scientists that had previously been dirverted away from the project and into the Luftwaffe, the 1940 11th February order shows how Hitler's intervention was leading to advanced programs being held up.
    Repeated but not substantiated claim.

    So it clearly demonstrates that what I had indeed stated about Hitler's intervention leading to delays in wonder weapons programs and resources being diverted away from them is factually correct.
    Considering that, as stated, in 1936 the aim was for a weapon to be introduced in 1943, which was achieved.
    Your quote clearly states: "Hitler crossed the rocket project off his list of urgent undertakings", yet the V-2 was NOT considered to be an "urgent undertaking" at that stage.
    So, Hitler (supposedly) tried to shut down or drastically curtail V-2 development in '40 (according to Speer - yet the missile managed to test fire a completely new motor in March 1940).). Does Speer also mention how much trouble he got into when it was discovered that had not been done?
    Bearing in mind that on "2 November 1942 Hitler approved a plan to begin series production" (Same source as previous quote).
    Regardless of whether Speer did in fact "secretly" divert resources to the programme the fact remains that Hitler's order did absolutely nothing with regard to delaying the V-2: it was planned to be ready in '43 and it was ready in '43. How is that "delayed"" in any way?

    Hitlers Bombe: Rainer Karlsch
    Really?
    You use this nutcase - a man, who, by his own admission, lacks proof of his claims (which have been refuted by the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt - at least with regard to the test he claimed occurred) and has been described as having "a catastrophic lack of understanding of physics" - as source?

    And your own link states "The atomic bomb was an interesting intelligence problem. In this we had to prove a negative case, one of the most difficult of intelligence exercises, for you have to make such a thorough search before you can confidently say that the enemy is doing nothing. True, we found the Germans doing something early on, which caused us to knock out the Norwegian heavy water production. This, in fact, as one of their experts told me, prevented them from doing the vital experiment which might have convinced them that the atomic bomb was possible. As it was, they decided that the bomb was not practicable and so finally did little about it."
    I.e. no nuclear weapon.
    (Oh, and it mentions the V-2 only in passing "It may be possible in a future issue to present the history of intelligence on the V-weapons in greater detail than Dr. Jones does here").
    Is that why you have, apart from Speer, merely listed your sources, rather than quote from them?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty88 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty88 View Post
    Hitler certainly could have defeated Russia had he captured Moscow! However the victory probably would have been short-lived..... there is no way they would have been able to hold the city for very long
    So what you're saying is: Russia wouldn't have been defeated if Moscow was taken.

    Moscow was (and still is) the heart of Russia and capturing the city would have provided much needed food, armament, shelter, and airfields
    Armament factories had been moved to the Urals.
    Armament factories were indeed moved away from Moscow, but existing factories and buildings that could have been used to produce armaments were still around.
    Lynx already pointed out that most of the Soviet Union's shipping went through Moscow. A factory without the ability to ship resources to and from it is just a building, nothing more. You can't crank out huge, iron tanks if nobody's sending you iron.

    The rail was the only way to move massive tons of resources back then. The road system would have been near worthless. Even the USA's road system was terrible back then. Eisenhower tried to move an army from the East to the West coast of the USA and it took him months. (This would later motivate him to push for a system of interstate highways after he became president.)

    With the zeal and efficiency of the Nazi forces they could have quickly captured existing stock and refurbished existing buildings.
    And in possession of the Soviet rail system, the Nazis could have quickly begun moving resources to those factories they had acquired. That is if any survived the siege.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Yeah. I'm thinking that, according to the Monroe doctrine, an attempt to conquer parts of South America would have been viewed as an act of war against the USA.
    Then we have one more interesting scenario: if the Reich would invade SA and US proclaim war on him, would Britain and France support U.S.? If not, then U.S. would be alone to fight both Japan and Germany on both sides. German submarine fleet would sink many U.S. ships and create total blockade of U.S. What would be outcome?
    I imagine the effort in South America would go similarly to how things went in North Africa. However, the USA would send weapons to the local population.

    As for a blockade - I don't think that would do much to stop the USA even if the Germans could achieve it. At that time the USA could provide nearly all the resources it needed from within its own borders, with no need to import resources from abroad. The few it did need to import (such as rubber for car tires, for example), it could ship from the Pacific Ocean.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty88 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty88 View Post
    Hitler certainly could have defeated Russia had he captured Moscow! However the victory probably would have been short-lived..... there is no way they would have been able to hold the city for very long
    So what you're saying is: Russia wouldn't have been defeated if Moscow was taken.

    Moscow was (and still is) the heart of Russia and capturing the city would have provided much needed food, armament, shelter, and airfields
    Armament factories had been moved to the Urals.
    Armament factories were indeed moved away from Moscow, but existing factories and buildings that could have been used to produce armaments were still around.
    Lynx already pointed out that most of the Soviet Union's shipping went through Moscow. A factory without the ability to ship resources to and from it is just a building, nothing more. You can't crank out huge, iron tanks if nobody's sending you iron.

    The rail was the only way to move massive tons of resources back then. The road system would have been near worthless. Even the USA's road system was terrible back then. Eisenhower tried to move an army from the East to the West coast of the USA and it took him months. (This would later motivate him to push for a system of interstate highways after he became president.)

    With the zeal and efficiency of the Nazi forces they could have quickly captured existing stock and refurbished existing buildings.
    And in possession of the Soviet rail system, the Nazis could have quickly begun moving resources to those factories they had acquired. That is if any survived the siege.
    I'm not sure (or even if) your comments were intended to refute what I posted, but I fail to see how it relates to my pointing out that a declaration that the Germans wouldn't have been able to hold Moscow for long contradicts the statement that taking Moscow would have meant Russian capitulation.

    As for "Nazis moving resources to those factories they had acquired" what would be the point?
    They produced weapons in Germany. It would surely have been cheaper and more efficient over all to simply transport finished weapons.
    Moving men and materiel to set up factories (requiring specialists - who would presumably be considerably better employed in safer surroundings getting on with their jobs 1) and then having to work through establishing those factories and ramping up to full production would have been a waste of time and effort unless holding Moscow was an established fact and likely to remain so.

    1 Plus the limited supply (and long lead times for production of) of machine tools to manufacture weapons.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post

    So yes the V2 came under army command, but many resources and scientists that had previously been dirverted away from the project and into the Luftwaffe, the 1940 11th February order shows how Hitler's intervention was leading to advanced programs being held up.
    Repeated but not substantiated claim.
    Ok well I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, but it's a historical fact that resources were diverted away from many of the wonder weapons programs and the rocket programs on Hitler's orders, you can question it all you wish, a fact is fact it's not even contraversial. But if you give people the idea that this is or was not indeed the case then you are doing them a disservice and I would strongly recommend they research it and see for themselves than listen to you.




    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Hitlers Bombe: Rainer Karlsch
    Really?
    You use this nutcase - a man, who, by his own admission, lacks proof of his claims (which have been refuted by the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt - at least with regard to the test he claimed occurred) and has been described as having "a catastrophic lack of understanding of physics" - as source?

    And your own link states "The atomic bomb was an interesting intelligence problem. In this we had to prove a negative case, one of the most difficult of intelligence exercises, for you have to make such a thorough search before you can confidently say that the enemy is doing nothing. True, we found the Germans doing something early on, which caused us to knock out the Norwegian heavy water production. This, in fact, as one of their experts told me, prevented them from doing the vital experiment which might have convinced them that the atomic bomb was possible. As it was, they decided that the bomb was not practicable and so finally did little about it."
    I.e. no nuclear weapon.
    Ok sure contraversial author, but interesting none the less, but your point is a strawman argument because I have at no time claimed Germany succeeded in developing a nuclear weapon, so perhaps at least try and stick with facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    (Oh, and it mentions the V-2 only in passing "It may be possible in a future issue to present the history of intelligence on the V-weapons in greater detail than Dr. Jones does here").
    Is that why you have, apart from Speer, merely listed your sources, rather than quote from them?
    No merely that when a person reads a text or relevant chapter themselves it's far harder for someone else to come along and twist it's meaning, thus people can see for themselves that what I've said is indeed correct regardless of your scepticism.

    And BTW, I've made a clear valid and factual assertion that Hilter was responsible for holding back the progress of various projects which were later rushed into production, I've cited evidence of at least one major order personally issued by Hilter regarding this endevour, testimony by his Armamnets Minister and cited plently of source texts to support this assertion, which is rather more evidence than the few dodgy rocket drawings offered forth by yourself!
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Ok well I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, but it's a historical fact that resources were diverted away from many of the wonder weapons programs and the rocket programs on Hitler's orders, you can question it all you wish, a fact is fact it's not even contraversial. But if you give people the idea that this is or was not indeed the case then you are doing them a disservice and I would strongly recommend they research it and see for themselves than listen to you.
    Still wrong.
    ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN POSTS they were supposed to be diverted but weren't (because Speer kept up the programme) i.e. resources were NOT diverted away.
    The other point I have already made: Hitler's intervention (whether it happened or not) did nothing whatsoever to delay the V-2. Planned for '43, in service in '43.

    but your point is a strawman argument because I have at no time claimed Germany succeeded in developing a nuclear weapon, so perhaps at least try and stick with facts.
    Strawman?
    Hardly.
    I haven't said anything about you claiming they developed a nuclear weapon: all I did was point out that Karlsch is not to be taken seriously (and you were the one who used him as a source - although for what I'm not sure).

    No merely that when a person reads a text or relevant chapter themselves it's far harder for someone else to come along and twist it's meaning, thus people can see for themselves that what I've said is indeed correct regardless of your scepticism.
    What does that have to do with the fact that your link doesn't address the subject of V-2?

    And BTW, I've made a clear valid and factual assertion that Hilter was responsible for holding back the progress of various projects which were later rushed into production, I've cited evidence of at least one major order personally issued by Hilter regarding this endevour, testimony by his Armamnets Minister and cited plently of source texts to support this assertion, which is rather more evidence than the few dodgy rocket drawings offered forth by yourself!
    You have given ONE source (Speer) that claims Hitler ordered diversion away from the V-2 programme. That same source (and the quote) states, quite categorically) that this diversion did not happen.
    As do the planned and in-service dates.

    As for "dodgy rocket drawings": not only is it dishonest of you to claim that they are all I've offered, those drawings were given as an indication that YOUR claim (still completely unsupported) that the Germans were planning on fitting nuclear warheads to the V-2 or variants - NOT as evidence or otherwise of the claim that Hitler's interference delayed the V-2.
    Perhaps you could try to be more honest next time, I offered noticeably more support for my case (any case) than just "dodgy rocket drawings".
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; May 6th, 2014 at 04:08 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    I imagine the effort in South America would go similarly to how things went in North Africa. However, the USA would send weapons to the local population.

    As for a blockade - I don't think that would do much to stop the USA even if the Germans could achieve it. At that time the USA could provide nearly all the resources it needed from within its own borders, with no need to import resources from abroad. The few it did need to import (such as rubber for car tires, for example), it could ship from the Pacific Ocean.
    I didn't mean that Germany would cause total lack of resources to U.S. Mostly I've meant they will be likely able to prevent U.S. to land their troops in SA or send large parties of weapon there. And this is also Japan who attacked U.S. in Pacific. What do you think would happen if Hitler would propose to U.S. a huge contribution for right to occupy some SA countries? Something way larger than any gains U.S. had ever from trade with SA? Or U.S. would not let Hitler in for any money?
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2
    Hitler fought on 2 fronts(USA +Allies and the USSR). He invaded with 3 million soldiers whereas the Soviets could muster 10+millions.Japan failed to pose a threat to the USSR eastern borders so the Soviets could move more soldiers to the West.
    Besides Hitler turned the occupied Soviet people against him by illtreating them.He Refused all tactical retreats by his Generals.
    Last but not least his allies (Romanians and Italians )were poor soldiers.They were the first to collapse causing a breach in German defences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by clyder8 View Post
    Hitler fought on 2 fronts(USA +Allies and the USSR). He invaded with 3 million soldiers whereas the Soviets could muster 10+millions.Japan failed to pose a threat to the USSR eastern borders so the Soviets could move more soldiers to the West.
    Besides Hitler turned the occupied Soviet people against him by illtreating them.He Refused all tactical retreats by his Generals.
    Last but not least his allies (Romanians and Italians )were poor soldiers.They were the first to collapse causing a breach in German defences.

    Certainly I think Russia was very lucky to avoid defeat during the war, with the German Army only 15 miles from Red Square it was only the Arctic Convoys bringing in British & American weapons and supplies that prevented a German victory. By the end of 1941, seven convoys had delivered 750 tanks, 800 planes, 2,300 vehicles and more than 100,000 tons of general cargo. These Arctic Convoys continued all the way into 1942 and the last of these convoys, PQ 18, transported 150,000 tons of cargo, as much as had been delivered in the whole of 1942.

    I was the fact the Allies were supplying the Russians that meant the Germans had to continue fighting on two fronts, if it was initially left down to a straight German v Russian fight then it's extremely likely the Germans would have won.

    Ultimately it was the combined forces of the Russians, British, Americans and the rest of the Allies that defeated the Nazis. They worked togother simply because they had to, Germany was far to strong for any single power to defeat. We have to remember here at the start of the war the Germans had suppior tactics and much of their equipment and weapons were far better than those of any other nation.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    We have to remember here at the start of the war the Germans - snip - much of their equipment and weapons were far better than those of any other nation.
    Nah.
    Generally the French had better (and more) tanks.
    A number of British tanks were significantly better.
    By the time the Germans rolled into Russia the USSR was already fielding T-34.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    We have to remember here at the start of the war the Germans - snip - much of their equipment and weapons were far better than those of any other nation.
    Nah.
    Generally the French had better (and more) tanks.
    A number of British tanks were significantly better.
    By the time the Germans rolled into Russia the USSR was already fielding T-34.
    Hey well yeah I would agree about the tanks, though in fairness you're probably being a bit pedantic as that is not really what I was meaning, I was thinking more here about things like the german tank radios that were giving them the edge in tank battles, guns like the luger pistol or the panzerfaust anti-tank weapons, the most advanced helmet design and really big weapons such as battleships like the Tirpitz, probably the most awsome warship of its time.

    The point being that Germany had long since been preparing for war and already had many of the tools, either in place or in the pipeline, ready to get the job done.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Hey well yeah I would agree about the tanks, though in fairness you're probably being a bit pedantic as that is not really what I was meaning, I was thinking more here about things like the german tank radios that were giving them the edge in tank battles, guns like the luger pistol or the panzerfaust anti-tank weapons, the most advanced helmet design and really big weapons such as battleships like the Tirpitz, probably the most awsome warship of its time.
    Um, the panzerfaust wasn't available until later in the war (1942), and came out within a month or so of the bazooka, IIRC, how does the Tirpitz class as "most awesome" warship? Much of its "fearsomeness" came about because the Germans lied about its true displacement: it was supposed to have been built to a tonnage limit - exceeded by a significant margin, and it was thought - at the time - that the ship conformed to that that limit. THAT would have made it special.

    The point being that Germany had long since been preparing for war and already had many of the tools, either in place or in the pipeline, ready to get the job done.
    And completely f*cked it up.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post

    The point being that Germany had long since been preparing for war and already had many of the tools, either in place or in the pipeline, ready to get the job done.
    And completely f*cked it up.
    Lol, go on keep it coming, really put some effort in see what's the best insults you can come up with

    Ok when you're finished with that let's get back to the actual history. Whilst it's very interesting about how the Tirpitz exceeded its supposed tonnage limit, the fact the Germans had agreed to limits on the displacement size of warships and then exceeded them, such as clearly had happened in the case of Tirpitz, doesn't actually stop it from being in any way the most fearsome battleship of its age.

    Um, the panzerfaust wasn't available until later in the war (1942), and came out within a month or so of the bazooka, IIRC, how does the Tirpitz class as "most awesome" warship? Much of its "fearsomeness" came about because the Germans lied about its true displacement: it was supposed to have been built to a tonnage limit - exceeded by a significant margin, and it was thought - at the time - that the ship conformed to that that limit. THAT would have made it special.
    If you were trying to make some other point here I think it needs to be much clearer, if not then perhaps you could clearly state whether or not you seeking to claim that the Tirpitz wasn't indeed the most powerful battleship or if you are actually accepting what I said was indeed correct.

    Clearly again here if you are going to claim that I am mistaken then that's fine but please provide some strong evidence to support this claim.

    As to the panzerfaust, 1942 now that's genuinely interesting and anymore background you could provide to its development would be welcomed.

    With regard to the tank radio's, helmet designs and luger pistols you have yet to say as to whether or not you are disputing my explantion that the Germans had the best for these.

    Finally just to give some credence to my claim about the Tirpitz some supporting evidence:

    She displaced 42,900 tons and had an overall length of 792 feet. Her maximum speed was 30 knots and she had a range of 9,000 miles at 19 knots. At its maximum, the ship’s armour was 12.5 inches and she was armed with 8 x 15 inch guns, 12 x 5.9 inch guns, 16 x 4 inch AA guns, 16 x 37mm AA guns, 58 x 20mm AA guns, 8 x 21 torpedo tubes and six aircraft. Her crew numbered 2,400.

    Or for a more detailed overview:

    Class & type: Bismarck-class battleship
    Displacement:

    42,900 t (42,200 long tons; 47,300 short tons) standard
    52,600 t (51,800 long tons; 58,000 short tons) full load

    Length:

    241.6 m (792 ft 8 in) waterline
    251 m (823 ft 6 in) overall

    Beam: 36 m (118 ft 1 in)
    Draft: 9.3 m (30 ft 6 in) standard[a]
    Installed power: 163,026 shp (121,568 kW)
    Propulsion:

    12 Wagner superheated boilers;
    3 geared steam turbines;
    3 three-blade propellers[1]

    Speed: 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
    Range: 8,870 nmi (16,430 km; 10,210 mi) at 19 knots (35 km/h; 22 mph)
    Complement:

    103 officers
    1,962 enlisted men

    Sensors and
    processing systems: FuMO 23
    Armament: As built:

    8 × 38 cm (15 in) SK C/34 (4 × 2)
    12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) (6 × 2)
    16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in) SK C/33 (8 × 2)
    16 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) SK C/30 (8 × 2)
    12 × 2 cm (0.79 in) FlaK 30 (12 × 1)

    Modifications:

    58 × 2 cm FlaK 30
    8 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in) torpedo tubes

    Armour:

    Belt: 320 mm (13 in)
    Turrets: 360 mm (14 in)
    Main deck: 100 to 120 mm (3.9 to 4.7 in)
    Upper deck: 50 mm (2.0 in)

    Aircraft carried: 4 × Arado Ar 196 floatplanes
    Aviation facilities: 1 double-ended catapult

    Such was the fear that the Tirpitz instilled, and it has to be said previous experience of fighting her sister ship the Bismarck, the British Admiralty had ordered that any attack against the Tirpitz or a similar ship, would have to include at least two King George V type battleships and an aircraft carrier.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Lol, go on keep it coming, really put some effort in see what's the best insults you can come up with
    Insults?
    You don't think the Germans f*cked up?

    such as clearly had happened in the case of Tirpitz, doesn't actually stop it from being in any way the most fearsome battleship of its age.
    Ah right. because it was better than for example, the Yamato? Or the Iowa class?


    Clearly again here if you are going to claim that I am mistaken then that's fine but please provide some strong evidence to support this claim.
    So how about YOU provide something other than claims?

    As to the panzerfaust, 1942 now that's genuinely interesting and anymore background you could provide to its development would be welcomed.
    Wiki would be a start.

    With regard to the tank radio's, helmet designs and luger pistols you have yet to say as to whether or not you are disputing my explantion that the Germans had the best for these.
    Largely beside the point.
    Pistols weren't a significant weapon of war, but the helmets were innovative and the distribution of radios made a difference.
    None of which means that "much of their equipment and weapons were far better than those of any other nation".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;514095]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Lol, go on keep it coming, really put some effort in see what's the best insults you can come up with
    Insults?
    You don't think the Germans f*cked up?
    Apologies, I got hold of the wrong end of the stick and thought you were having a pop, my bad.

    such as clearly had happened in the case of Tirpitz, doesn't actually stop it from being in any way the most fearsome battleship of its age.
    Ah right. because it was better than for example, the Yamato? Or the Iowa class?
    Again here I should have specified more clearly British v German, certainly the Yamato and the Iowa class are fearsome warships but set fighting a different part of the war, the US v Japan aspect, I was mainly refering to the European theatre of operations.

    With regard to the tank radio's, helmet designs and luger pistols you have yet to say as to whether or not you are disputing my explantion that the Germans had the best for these.
    Largely beside the point.
    Pistols weren't a significant weapon of war, but the helmets were innovative and the distribution of radios made a difference.
    None of which means that "much of their equipment and weapons were far better than those of any other nation".
    I guess that's a pretty subjective point depending on the way you view things, but given the number of soldiers issued with them and the number of tanks in service I would suggest that they had to have made some difference.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Again here I should have specified more clearly Brithish v German, certainly the Yamato and the Iowa class are fearsome warships but set fighting a different part of the, the US v Japan aspect.
    Okay.
    Granted the Tirpitz was larger than the KGVs or any contemporary British vessel, but don't forget that its sister - the Bismark - didn't last long in a fight with its peers (something the Tirpitz itself managed to avoid).
    The Tirpitz was "fearsome" mainly because it didn't get into a running battle - it acted as a fleet in being.

    I guess that's a pretty subjective point depending on the way you view things, but given the number of soldiers issued with them and the number of tanks in service I would suggest that they had to have made some difference.
    I doubt that Lugers made any difference whatsoever, apart from acting as bait in the odd booby trap for souvenir hunters. The distribution of radios certainly did.
    Ascended likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Do you think that Americans would agree to sacrifice couple of millions of its soldiers to fight Hitler invading SA?
    Depends on how badly he disrupted the operations of American industry in those countries. For humanitarian reasons? No. I doubt the USA would care if Hitler wiped out Chile or Peru. But if American industry lost plantations to grow rubber, or something like that, they'd stir the public up into being mad about it somehow.

    I'm starting to see some merit into the "Nazis occupy South America" idea, though. Certainly there were plenty of "Aryan" people living in South America who could be convinced to join the Nazis and turn against the "lesser races" that surrounded them. If those people joined them, the Nazis would have started out with a foothold in place already.

    No need for an amphibious assault to set up a beach head. More likely some Nazi sympathisers in Argentina would simply cordon off a beach for them and let them march into Argentina freely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    I imagine the effort in South America would go similarly to how things went in North Africa. However, the USA would send weapons to the local population.

    As for a blockade - I don't think that would do much to stop the USA even if the Germans could achieve it. At that time the USA could provide nearly all the resources it needed from within its own borders, with no need to import resources from abroad. The few it did need to import (such as rubber for car tires, for example), it could ship from the Pacific Ocean.
    I didn't mean that Germany would cause total lack of resources to U.S. Mostly I've meant they will be likely able to prevent U.S. to land their troops in SA or send large parties of weapon there. And this is also Japan who attacked U.S. in Pacific. What do you think would happen if Hitler would propose to U.S. a huge contribution for right to occupy some SA countries? Something way larger than any gains U.S. had ever from trade with SA? Or U.S. would not let Hitler in for any money?
    That's a dicey prospect. The USA was allies with Britain, and dealing with Germany that way would ruin relations with Britain.

    Hilter would have needed to first agree to stop attacking Britain. Make a truce or something.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty88 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty88 View Post
    Hitler certainly could have defeated Russia had he captured Moscow! However the victory probably would have been short-lived..... there is no way they would have been able to hold the city for very long
    So what you're saying is: Russia wouldn't have been defeated if Moscow was taken.

    Moscow was (and still is) the heart of Russia and capturing the city would have provided much needed food, armament, shelter, and airfields
    Armament factories had been moved to the Urals.
    Armament factories were indeed moved away from Moscow, but existing factories and buildings that could have been used to produce armaments were still around.
    Lynx already pointed out that most of the Soviet Union's shipping went through Moscow. A factory without the ability to ship resources to and from it is just a building, nothing more. You can't crank out huge, iron tanks if nobody's sending you iron.

    The rail was the only way to move massive tons of resources back then. The road system would have been near worthless. Even the USA's road system was terrible back then. Eisenhower tried to move an army from the East to the West coast of the USA and it took him months. (This would later motivate him to push for a system of interstate highways after he became president.)

    With the zeal and efficiency of the Nazi forces they could have quickly captured existing stock and refurbished existing buildings.
    And in possession of the Soviet rail system, the Nazis could have quickly begun moving resources to those factories they had acquired. That is if any survived the siege.
    I'm not sure (or even if) your comments were intended to refute what I posted, but I fail to see how it relates to my pointing out that a declaration that the Germans wouldn't have been able to hold Moscow for long contradicts the statement that taking Moscow would have meant Russian capitulation.

    As for "Nazis moving resources to those factories they had acquired" what would be the point?
    They produced weapons in Germany. It would surely have been cheaper and more efficient over all to simply transport finished weapons.
    Moving men and materiel to set up factories (requiring specialists - who would presumably be considerably better employed in safer surroundings getting on with their jobs 1) and then having to work through establishing those factories and ramping up to full production would have been a waste of time and effort unless holding Moscow was an established fact and likely to remain so.

    1 Plus the limited supply (and long lead times for production of) of machine tools to manufacture weapons.
    True. No point in using the Russian factories. So a better option would be to utterly destroy them while they're in German possession. Then so what if Russia should take back Moscow? What would they be taking back? A bunch of ashes that supposedly represent Russian political history?

    If the Germans had Moscow and thought they soon might lose it, their best option would be to tear up the rails, and haul the iron rail ties back to Germany to make tanks out of.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Bachelors Degree GoldenRatio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo View Post
    The biggest mistake Hitler made was invading Russia in the first place.


    Actually, hitlers biggest mistake was being hitler.

    How could Hitler have won the Russian campaign?
    By not declaring war against the USA. Who knows how global politics would have effected the European war then. There was a prefered stream in USA politics which prefered the USA being focussed inward. Kinda like the medieval China decision to not get involved in global politics and only focus in on itself. If Hitler had said to the USA 'oh dear those evil Japanese, we will assist you USA' he would probably not have been believed, but it would have given him more time and prevented the USA industrial machine turning out weapons and other resources against him. The USA was already helping out the UK and such, but by declaring war Hitler opened up more shit then he bargained for.
    Actually USA wanted to get into the war anyways, we already hated hitler & wanted to get our boys in the mix but needed an excuse. Pearl harbor was, for all intensive purposes, allowed to happen. We did everything but put down runway lights for the japanese to attack just so we could have a good excuse of "hey they cant do that" and get in the mix.

    As i said. Hitlers biggest mistake was being hitler

    Hitler was great at politics, I will give him that. He was an amazing politician, in 5 measly years he took a poverty stricken country and turned it into a dominating empire that could have conquered the world, or at least euro-asia.

    However, when it came to other aspects he failed, miserably. He was a complete screwball (obviously) & refused to listen to his war generals. If he had actually listened to his generals he would of went much further.

    He invaded africa, successfully. However when it came to reinforcements he basically cut off all support and reinforcements. Rommel & his panzers still did a pretty good job of whoopin those brits for a while despite conditions but ultimately failed.

    Russia failed for numerous reasons. the cold is bad enough, even worse when hitler wont send you rations like food. His generals also told him it was ill advised, but he went ahead.

    Normady could of been prevented, reserve forces were in waiting but hitler was taking a nap and no-one was brave enough to wake him to tell him the allies were invading. They would of been shot on the spot.

    In general, hitlers dismise was wanting everything at once. He spread his forces way too thin over too much of an area.

    He was a screwball, the ramblings of a madman who wanted to follow his grand vision laid out in mein kampf. His millitary stradegy was very bad & ignored almost every piece of advice his generals told him.

    and if it wasnt for those yanks we could of dragged the war out atleast another 20 yrs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    Actually USA wanted to get into the war anyways
    Not really.

    Pearl harbor was, for all intensive purposes, allowed to happen. We did everything but put down runway lights for the japanese to attack just so we could have a good excuse of "hey they cant do that" and get in the mix.
    Absolutely. (In the sense of "not even close to being factual").

    and if it wasnt for those yanks we could of dragged the war out atleast another 20 yrs.
    No.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Bachelors Degree GoldenRatio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    Actually USA wanted to get into the war anyways
    Not really.

    Pearl harbor was, for all intensive purposes, allowed to happen. We did everything but put down runway lights for the japanese to attack just so we could have a good excuse of "hey they cant do that" and get in the mix.
    Absolutely. (In the sense of "not even close to being factual").

    and if it wasnt for those yanks we could of dragged the war out atleast another 20 yrs.
    No.
    Let me rephrase. The public(& congress) was against war, however Roosevelt was pro war and eager to jump in. We positioned the ships in hawaii to prod and poke at the jap fleet, to try and gourd the empire into attacking. The ships had little support & a skeleton crew.

    Richardson protested numerous times & including contacting FDR personally & disobeying orders before being relieved. His successor kimmel also protested that it was very unwise to provoke the bear.

    James O. Richardson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Britans enigma machine had already broke the japanese code & warned the us that an attack on pearl harbor was likely to happen.

    Mccollum wrote an 8 point memo on how to get the japanese to attack. all 8 were carried out.

    McCollum Memo

    & there are many other facts surrounding pearl harbor where we pretty much rolled out the welcome wagon.

    Sorry my feathered friend, but pearl harbor was allowed to happen. History, however is written by the victor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    Let me rephrase. The public(& congress) was against war, however Roosevelt was pro war and eager to jump in.
    So, basically, the US was against the idea of joining in.
    And FDR was pro war? The guy whose stated policy was "All aid short of war"?

    Britans enigma machine had already broke the japanese code & warned the us that an attack on pearl harbor was likely to happen.
    Um, and that's an indicator that the US invited it?
    Right.

    Mccollum wrote an 8 point memo on how to get the japanese to attack. all 8 were carried out.
    Yeah. As in "No".
    Take a look at, for example, point 8: declare war against Japan without more ado - in 1940. THAT certainly happened, didn't it?

    Sorry my feathered friend, but pearl harbor was allowed to happen.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    It's pretty well known that FDR took several actions to entice the Japanese into a war....including not only the oil crisis the US precipitated, but going as far as order several old destroyers to provoke them into a fight with full intention of using such as incident to convince the American public and Congress that war was necessary.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    It's pretty well known that FDR took several actions to entice the Japanese into a war....including not only the oil crisis the US precipitated, but going as far as order several old destroyers to provoke them into a fight with full intention of using such as incident to convince the American public and Congress that war was necessary.
    It seems extremely convient that every single US aircraft carrier that should have been with the rest of the fleet at Pearl Harbour was absent at the time of the Japanese attack. Now this is entirely speculative, but if the they did have prior intelligence of the forth coming Japanese attack the only really important assets that would be absolutely crucial would be the aircraft carriers and not one of them was there at the time, this would kind of suggest extreme luck or prior knowledge.

    If FDR had known of the japanese plans ahead of time and moved or warned the fleet stationed at Pearl Harbour and the Japanese had found out then the attack might never have happened and America wouldn't have had any real reason for entering the war, but since nobody can know for sure whether FDR really did know in advance this is just purely speculative based on the facts that we do know of.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    It seems extremely convient that every single US aircraft carrier that should have been with the rest of the fleet at Pearl Harbour was absent at the time of the Japanese attack.
    A further important disadvantage—this of timing, and known to the Japanese—was the absence from Pearl Harbor of all three of the U.S. Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    It seems extremely convient that every single US aircraft carrier that should have been with the rest of the fleet at Pearl Harbour was absent at the time of the Japanese attack.
    A further important disadvantage—this of timing, and known to the Japanese—was the absence from Pearl Harbor of all three of the U.S. Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers.
    Yes but this isn't really the point, because whether the Japanese knew the carriers were at Pearl or not, if the US had known ahead of time of the attack they still wouldn't want them in firing line. Now moving the carriers is one thing, putting the entire fleet on alert or moving them doesn't give the Japanese a target at all.

    It means they could get away with moving their prize assets, the carriers, which actually happened. The only real question is whether the highly dubious explanations of why ALL of the carriers were sent away prior to the Japanese attack was by incredible luck or by design.

    A question that seems impossible to ever really know the real answer to, at best we can speculate from the actual events.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman ssk1777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Long island, Ny
    Posts
    8
    I don't think so because after Moscow Russia is still a huge country he has the rest of Russia to conquer and remember how harsh a Russian winter is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Even if German army would approach Moscow before winter came, how large, do you think, would be their looses during attempt to capture Moscow and
    how long would it take? Moscow population and size was a few times larger than Stalingrad. How long Germans would conduct street fights and what about aerial bombardment? I heard that in September 1941 Germans were forced to suspend their air raids on Moscow because looses were too high. Russian anti-aircraft guns were quite numerous.

    I don't think so because after Moscow Russia is still a huge country he has the rest of Russia to conquer and remember how harsh a Russian winter is.
    It seems Hitler didn't even planned to conquer entire USSR as a medium-term goal. His goal was to establish strongholds during the line Archangelsk - Astrakhan. And after that force Russians to ceasefire for some indefinite period of time.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    27°20'06.53"N 82°32'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    [
    --
    Even without Japan's entry the US would have jumped into the war. We were already deep into lend-lease program to UK and USSR as well as under full mobilization of our military prior to Pearl Harbor. There's also some interesting stories about US WWI vintage military ships sent out to precipitate an international incident with Japan to stir American support.[/QUOTE]

    The US government (except Roosevelt) was so isolationist, I truly believe,we would have stood on the sidelines, even had the extermination of the jews been brought to light. There are conspiracy theories that had been entertained, pertaining to the possibility that FDR somehow staged the pearl harbor attack, because he knew we needed to enter the war. Much of what FDR did in support of the UK during the European campaign was very close to breaking the isolationist laws designed to keep the US out of the war.
    Hitler was insane, at no time in his life was he ever reasonable, he grew in power and slid deeper into his narcissistic delusion. He second guessed the military genius that were in his command, he was destined to failure. When the Japanese attacked pearl harbor, FDR must have kissed the Bible.
    My opinion -> FDR was the greatest US president (not just because I am a democrat haha), the brits are some of the bravest (and most ingenious) people on the planet, and Hitler and all that where aware of his crimes where destined to be the filth of humanity.
    NEVER FORGET!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    If America hadn't gotten involved, Russia still would have owned Germany. If Germany had defeated Russia/Russia hadn't got involved, America still would have won but it would have taken a while, (albeit largely because of the bombing pressure Britain had put up for the whole war.) The primary reason we would have won was the number of planes/tanks/cars we were producing a day once our war machine got rolling. Not having your factories bombed daily does wonders for your productivity. So even if he had defeated Russia, Hitler still would have lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    [
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    --
    Even without Japan's entry the US would have jumped into the war. We were already deep into lend-lease program to UK and USSR as well as under full mobilization of our military prior to Pearl Harbor. There's also some interesting stories about US WWI vintage military ships sent out to precipitate an international incident with Japan to stir American support.


    The US government (except Roosevelt) was so isolationist, I truly believe,we would have stood on the sidelines, even had the extermination of the jews been brought to light. There are conspiracy theories that had been entertained, pertaining to the possibility that FDR somehow staged the pearl harbor attack, because he knew we needed to enter the war. Much of what FDR did in support of the UK during the European campaign was very close to breaking the isolationist laws designed to keep the US out of the war.
    Hitler was insane, at no time in his life was he ever reasonable, he grew in power and slid deeper into his narcissistic delusion. He second guessed the military genius that were in his command, he was destined to failure. When the Japanese attacked pearl harbor, FDR must have kissed the Bible.
    My opinion -> FDR was the greatest US president (not just because I am a democrat haha), the brits are some of the bravest (and most ingenious) people on the planet, and Hitler and all that where aware of his crimes where destined to be the filth of humanity.
    NEVER FORGET!!!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

    FDR's precedent for imprisoning ethnic groups because of half-cooked ideas whose recipe was paranoia does his legacy no favors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    27°20'06.53"N 82°32'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    I avoid being judgmental on issues I haven't researched, and couldn't (having not been there). From the documented history I have been exposed to, I would stand by my admiration of the man. No person is without fault, but from my perception, I believe we all should be happy that that man was in that place, at that time.
    I honestly believe had the axis powers left the US completely alone, the germans would have developed a nuclear force, that may very well have resulted in a very poison planet.
    After defeating the soviets and exterminating the jews, they surely would have turned on their non Arien, Japanese alleys. In the meantime we would be listening to ozzy and Harriet on the radio.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    I avoid being judgmental on issues I haven't researched, and couldn't (having not been there). From the documented history I have been exposed to, I would stand by my admiration of the man. No person is without fault, but from my perception, I believe we all should be happy that that man was in that place, at that time.
    I honestly believe had the axis powers left the US completely alone, the germans would have developed a nuclear force, that may very well have resulted in a very poison planet.
    After defeating the soviets and exterminating the jews, they surely would have turned on their non Arien, Japanese alleys. In the meantime we would be listening to ozzy and Harriet on the radio.
    Japanese-American Internment [ushistory.org]

    Premature death in the Japanese internment camps was double what it was outside. It wasn't a genocide in the way the holocaust and the Native American genocide was. But it was massive, purely racist oppression that enslaved many thousands of Americans and caused many of their deaths/mental illness. You know the US government even released propaganda that conditions in the camps were great and Japanese people happily engaging in physical labor to help the war effort? Sound like any other 1940s regime you know of?

    I can appreciate he make some good calls in the war, but I can't respect such a man. I can overlook racism in leaders to some degree if it was the cultural thought of almost everyone. What I can't overlook is actively making the oppression worse and furthering initiatives even more racist and oppressive than what already exists. Which is also my problem with George Washington.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    27°20'06.53"N 82°32'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    Never been one to condone racism in any form, perhaps I really should look more into that aspect of the war. My dad, and mom where directly effected by their involvement in the war, my dad's prejudice ran deep.
    The psychological scars of the attack on Pearl Harbor effected this country far more then it probably should have. The USA was, and still is, very vulnerable like that. The bravery displayed in the response, in both theaters of the war, and the depth of the collaboration with the British, makes me proud of our fore fathers. I also shake my head in disbelief at the axis warlords that allowed their citizens to be slaughtered, en mass, and the blind faith, of the soldiers and citizens to be so dedicated to those self exalted bastards.
    I my soul searching to understand the depth of my dad's hatred, the brutality exhibited by the Japanese, in many ways, gave the impression we where dealing with a society with super natural hatred.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Never been one to condone racism in any form, perhaps I really should look more into that aspect of the war. My dad, and mom where directly effected by their involvement in the war, my dad's prejudice ran deep.
    The psychological scars of the attack on Pearl Harbor effected this country far more then it probably should have. The USA was, and still is, very vulnerable like that. The bravery displayed in the response, in both theaters of the war, and the depth of the collaboration with the British, makes me proud of our fore fathers. I also shake my head in disbelief at the axis warlords that allowed their citizens to be slaughtered, en mass, and the blind faith, of the soldiers and citizens to be so dedicated to those self exalted bastards.
    I my soul searching to understand the depth of my dad's hatred, the brutality exhibited by the Japanese, in many ways, gave the impression we where dealing with a society with super natural hatred.
    But don't you see the hypocrisy? You can't believe the German people allowed the internment camps to happen, but we let the Japanese camps happen which also murdered lots of people because of pure racism. You can't believe people would exalt racists warlords, yet you and most people exalt FDR who stole the lives of many people and years from many, many more because the color of their skin. There are justifications for the racism against Japanese, but there are justifications for the racism against Jews, too. Being racist doesn't make you evil, but the racism is evil. And those who enact institutionalized racism that, when it lead to deaths because of awful conditions, is murder of someone for their ethnicity.

    FDR was a bad person. Look up his criticisms for his racism and power hunger. Being an effective leader doesn't change that. You know he admired Benito Mussolini and his accomplishments?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    If America hadn't gotten involved, Russia still would have owned Germany. If Germany had defeated Russia/Russia hadn't got involved, America still would have won but it would have taken a while, (albeit largely because of the bombing pressure Britain had put up for the whole war.) The primary reason we would have won was the number of planes/tanks/cars we were producing a day once our war machine got rolling. Not having your factories bombed daily does wonders for your productivity. So even if he had defeated Russia, Hitler still would have lost.

    If you mean Russia could have beat Germany without America formally joining the war, then yeah that's probably true. Russia provided more troops than anyone else did.

    But if America had played no role at all, Germany would have mopped the floor with Russia. They just plain didn't have enough factory production up and going at the start of the war to have held the Germans off.


    Everyone has heard about the soldiers charging the machine gun nests at Stalingrad, one man with a rifle, and the guy behind him with just a clip of ammo - expected to pick up the rifle off of his comrade when (not if) he goes down. That was Russia in the early stages of the war. Later on, after they'd pressed the Germans off of their immediate borders, then they started to get their factories going better.

    WW2 was either the first or the second war in human history ever to be fought in a manner where it would be totally impossible for an underdeveloped nation to win. Regardless of determination. WW1 might have been the first. It's debatable.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Legalizing Drugs to Win The War on Drugs
    By arKane in forum Politics
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: February 13th, 2011, 09:13 PM
  2. Obama -> Smart = Win; Black = Huge Win
    By Golkarian in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 9th, 2009, 02:22 AM
  3. Unseen for 112 years, dwarf cloud rat captured
    By hitechwave.com in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 8th, 2008, 01:19 PM
  4. Embryonic Star Captured with Jets Flaring
    By Dr. Spitzer in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 18th, 2007, 06:28 PM
  5. Hitler
    By thevignesh in forum History
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 30th, 2006, 05:11 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •