| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Could Hitler Have Won?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Could Hitler Have Won?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017 at 10:53
AnchoriticSybarite 

Thanks for your well thought out well written post.

Yes, my direct question hinged on missed opportunities due to misplaced resources, building massive fortifications, houses etc. Goering consistently promised Hitler that he could main the logistics supply line for front line troops, but he couldn't-he didn't have the resources.

Massive trains and train mobile artillery (which saw little action) was one of Hitlers passions.

As for how he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, as is currently being said  about President Trump, if he learned to listed, he'd learn to govern. In Hitler's case, if he had learned to listen to his generals, he may well have gone closer to winning the war, IMHO.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 97
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017 at 23:27
Ironically two of the more egregious examples of squandered opportunities, were not made against the better judgment of his generals.

The infamous stop order which allowed the British army to escape at Dunkirk was made with almost complete agreement by the General Staff and the higher level commanders. It was only the lower level commanders like Rommel and Guderian who chaffed at the missed opportunity.

The other decision was the gratuitous declaration of war by Hitler against the US. Without deliberately going to war with the US, Hitler would have found it almost impossible to manage to lose the war. There is no conceivable way FDR as much as he yearned to go to war against Germany could have flown in the face of public opinion after the devastating attack against Pearl Harbor and allowed any continuation of aid to Britain and Russia. Far from defying his generals, they were to a man in favor of the declaration. Goering and others had in fact been lobbying him for months to declare war preemptively.
Back to Top
Kevin Beach View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 16 Feb 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Kevin Beach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2017 at 17:35
Hitler was not a good strategist. He tended to bite off more than he could chew, because he believed in his own ultimate invincibility.

In 1940, he attacked Britain too soon. If he had won the Battle of Britain, his forces would still have been stretched to keep Britain under the jackboot. He should have kept back until a year later, in 1941, after he had finished with the rest of western Europe.

His frolics into the Balkans and Greece were ridiculous. He should have left them alone until he had consolidated all his other positions.

He should have stayed out of North Africa, until he had completely vanquished vanquished the rest of Europe.

Having decided to betray the Soviet Union and invade it, he should have done so only when he could commit all his attack forces to the campaign, instead of committing them to different fronts. He would have defeated Stalin and crushed the Soviet forces west of the Urals. He could then have had his Lebensraum.

Generally, he should have trusted the Wehrmacht's High Command, letting them use their own strategy and tactics to fulfill his policy aims. He hadn't a clue about logistics and frequently messed up good military plans by interfering with them.

So, yes, Hitler/the Nazis could have won, but only by doing things differently.
Whoever ignores history is condemned to repeat it
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 97
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2017 at 23:18
Originally posted by Kevin Beach Kevin Beach wrote:

Hitler was not a good strategist. He tended to bite off more than he could chew, because he believed in his own ultimate invincibility.

In 1940, he attacked Britain too soon. If he had won the Battle of Britain, his forces would still have been stretched to keep Britain under the jackboot. He should have kept back until a year later, in 1941, after he had finished with the rest of western Europe.

In point of fact Hitler had Britain beaten IN 1940. Had he not issued the insane stop order. He could have bagged the entire BEF and forced an unconditional surrender by England. No if, and or buts.

His frolics into the Balkans and Greece were ridiculous. He should have left them alone until he had consolidated all his other positions.

A much more tenuous position. A--Mussolini put him in a difficult position to begin with. (Both WW I & II Germany's inept coalition partners required them to repeatedly save their bacon, just when they were on the verge of decisive victories.) B--The argument that this delayed Barbarossa long enough for Mother Winter to save the USSR ignores the fact that an earlier jump off date might also have been delayed by bad (wet) weather by a similar factor. You very well may be right, but no one can say definitively yes or no.

He should have stayed out of North Africa, until he had completely vanquished vanquished the rest of Europe.


A stronger argument would be that having gone there just a miniscule increase in commitment could have brought him total control of the Med, Egypt and the oil wealth of the middle east. With the same level of commitment, but with an airborn landing in Malta instead of Crete could have gotten him the same result. But the two paltry divisions he did commit could not have conceivably made any difference in Barbarossa.

Having decided to betray the Soviet Union and invade it, he should have done so only when he could commit all his attack forces to the campaign, instead of committing them to different fronts. He would have defeated Stalin and crushed the Soviet forces west of the Urals. He could then have had his Lebensraum.

Generally, he should have trusted the Wehrmacht's High Command, letting them use their own strategy and tactics to fulfill his policy aims. He hadn't a clue about logistics and frequently messed up good military plans by interfering with them.

Again an argument can be made that once committing to Barbarossa he should have either left it in the hands of his generals or stood his ground and demanded a complete commitment to the strategy of taking the Ukraine and continuing on to the Caucasus oil fields. In fact Hitler had nothing to do with the failure of the Wehrmacht to take Leningrad. The northern prong of Barbarossa got to the city limits of the city and waited 24 hours before trying to enter. Had the local commander had a sense of urgency and pressed them to enter immediately, the local Soviets did not even have a pack of Cub Scouts to oppose them.

So, yes, Hitler/the Nazis could have won, but only by doing things differently.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 3024
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2017 at 00:29
If Hitler was not Hitler, then he could have won,
However, if Hitler was not Hitler, he probably wouldn't
have gotten into it, in the first place.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2017 at 04:26
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

If Hitler was not Hitler, then he could have won,
However, if Hitler was not Hitler, he probably wouldn't
have gotten into it, in the first place.

Uh, oh!! We've lost Franky again. Wink
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Nov 2017 at 11:49
Quote Thirdly. Now this is a stretch but I think it fits the category. In 1941 when Hitler first crashed into Russia he could have drawn literally millions of disaffected Russians who hate Stalin and the Communists. Nothing could have been simpler than to arm then and point them at the Soviets. Leningrad falls, Moscow falls, the Germans reach Baku and the oil fields. Stalin is deposed and the Soviets reach a peace deal with Hitler. He then stages victory parades and machine guns the Russian troops he has duped into guaranteeing his victory.
You mean like the Ukraine SS units or the Russian Liberation Army? The latter was deeply distrusted by Hitler - remember that he considered slavs as sub-human. In the event he was right to be dubious. The vast majority of ROA units were taken out of the line because of desertions and sent to garrison duties in the west where they would later surrender en masse to the Allies. The only defence put up by the ROA was on the River Oder in 1945 for three days and the Russians, as you might expect, took revenge on their rebellious brethren.
 
It is worth noting that with the Wehrmacht a mere forty miles from Moscow (Recce units may well have been within sight of the objective) a mass evacuation was taking place. Stalin was on the point of giving up, becoming morose and despondent. I doubt a character like him would have surrendered and remember that as a very ruthless paranoid dictator (he had already executed the top 85% of the Red Army's leaders in the thirties) deposing him was a risky endeavour regardless of circumstance.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Nov 2017 at 23:09
The OP relates to the misuse of materiel and human resources, along with bad policy decisions, which, if they had been altered, may have led Hitler to victory in Europe, as much by overwhelming force as anything else.

Technologically, the Germans outclassed the Russians by miles, and, along with weather conditions and stubborn resistance, breakdown of the supply lines resulted in a loss of German impetus-and therefore the battle.

Blitzkreig stunned the other countries into submission but there simply wasn't enough "push" to over-run the Russians.

With more resources dedicated to war fighting, rather than guarding worthless targets, and millions of men employed in building projects, I believe that England could have been taken, and probably WW2 won by Germany.


It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 3024
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Nov 2017 at 01:00
I wonder what would have happened on the Eastern front, if the Nazis had taken Moscow, from what I understand they came close.  What would have happened if they did?  Maybe Russia would have been a different story if that had happened.

I am not sure what you mean by misuse of human resources, are you referring to the slave labor?  How are you supposed to treat slave labor?  Particularly slave labor that you are trying to get rid of through not feeding enough calories per day.

When are you thinking of when Britain would have been taken?  The time of the Battle of Britain, or later?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Nov 2017 at 02:45
Quote I am not sure what you mean by misuse of human resources, are you referring to the slave labor?  How are you supposed to treat slave labor?  Particularly slave labor that you are trying to get rid of through not feeding enough calories per day.

When are you thinking of when Britain would have been taken?  The time of the Battle of Britain, or later?

I used the word " misused" in the context of they could have been perhaps better utilised for war fighting.

And I'm referring to the soldiers who were diverted to building and static guard duty, and of course the prison camps, who could have been better utilised for war fighting.

I think that, if Hitler had launched a massive blitzkreig on England in 1937-38, he could have taken England, thereby also precluding the UK from use by the US for military bases, a course which, in itself would have changed the direction of the war in Europe.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Dec 2017 at 11:10

Before 1940 the Germans stood even less chance of success in England. The 1939 Saar offensive advanced only five miles into German territory and did not attempt to penetrate the unfinished Siegried Line. There were no German tanks on the western front at one point. One German general has since forwarded the view that had the French mounted a serious and concerted offensive, with their superiority in numbers of troops, armoured cars, tanks, and aeroplanes, that the German forces on the Western Front would have lasted no more than one or two weeks. Some French tanks were heavier and better than the German panzers of the time (though in practice they proved to be unreliable and were often abandoned on the battlefield). Gamelin's policy however was to wait until French forces were in his view adequate before waging an offensive even if it meant waiting until 1941, thus a a waiting game on the western front and many foreign adventures were planned. The Germans for their part had spotted the weakness of the Ardennes, in which minor french defenses were present. The French ignored reports of fifty German divisions moving through the Ardennes as they believed that area was not suitable for an attack.

http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.