How could Germany win the war?

[Christoph Awender]

Forget it 2nd SS, it´s just senseless. There´s always people that are so full of arrogance that you´ll never make a point clear on them. A psychiatrist might be more schooled to deal with such cases but that´s something else.

Gebirgsjäger, supporting this guy just because I am "against" him makes you an even more ridiculous character than I thought you are. You pass by every two weeks and post some stupid sentences directed against me. Start contributing information not stupid rants towards me... you won´t raise my blood pressure with it and just waist Jasons bandwith.

\Christoph

[2nd SS Panzer Das Reich]

[/quote]

Forget it 2nd SS, it´s just senseless. There´s always people that are so full of arrogance that you´ll never make a point clear on them. A psychiatrist might be more schooled to deal with such cases but that´s something else.[/quote]

You and I are on the same page.

Ah your a German! Whats going on over there? I am part German and take real pride in that. I am shocked at the outstanding German military background. I take pride in calling myself a German American. I watched a TV special on the history channel about World War I, you guys are awesome!

[Qvist]

Hi Sid



I overlooked your post on med strategy. I think there are two fatal flaws in the argument:

1) It presupposes that it is feasible for the Germans to end the war with Britain one way or the other

and

2) It presupposes that in the mean time the Soviet Union will sit pat until it suits Germany to attack

Also, it does not take into consideration that war with the USSR was likely to become an increasingly more difficult undertaking for each passing year, as the Soviet growth potential was far large than the German. It is difficult to see that the conquest of the ME would really have improved the German position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, while wide-ranging commitments in Africa and Asia would have dissipated German strength. Basically, I do not think it was a feasible option for Germany to defeat Britain without allowing the Soviet strength to reach unamanageable proportions, and also doing so would have required vast outlays on building capabilities of a type they did not possess, which would inevitably have left the German Army in the East weakened, and thus even less capable of dealing with an escalating Soviet threat. (In fact, I do not think it was feasible for Germany to defeat Britain at all, given US entry in late 41, but this was of course not known to the Germans in 1940). Adventures in the Med would not have brought down Britain in itself, and would not have addressed any of Germany's key strategic challenges. All in all, from the vantage point of the time, the reasoning in support of an attack in the East in 1941 actually appears to me very strong, considering the alternatives. The only real alternative to it AFAICS would have been to attempt a policy of consolidation stressing build-up of forces on the Eastern frontier.

cheers

[Maj. Balck]

This is repeating a number of excellent points already made, just adding my 2c.

The removal of Hitler from the military chain of command. He was grossly unsuitable as a commander of any kind and any war in which he had a command role (as opposed to a political role) would be eventually lost. The OKW and OKH must be given strategic orders and left to plan operations and conduct them without interference.

Industry must be put on a war footing on the invasion of Poland (so as not to give the game away too much be doing so earlier). The material shortages throughout the war were a major cause of eventual loss.

U-boats must receive a much greater priority in production. A sustainable fleet of at least 300 boats would be required by the beginning of 1940. This would create so many problems for Britain that she would be totally unable to influence events due to lack of raw materials, food and the need to devote enormous industry to the U-boat war, industry that could not be directed offensively. Britain need not be conquered, just suppressed.

After France, the priority must be the destruction of all allied forces in the Mediterranean and middle east and the occupation of the oilfields which would permanantly solve the Axis fuel problems. Gibraltar must also be taken to deny the allies any access to the Mediterranean at all except by a major invasion (unlikely and virtually impossible).

The Balkans need not be occupied as without any hope of allied help or support they would undoubtedly take a neutral role in events. No need to tie down German divisions unnecessarily.

At this point virtually the entire Italian army is free for operations, the 10th Army is never destroyed, Ethiopia remains under control and there is almost no threat of a confrontation with Britain at any point in the next several years.

The German logistical system needs to be overhauled to deal with the distances and requirements of Russia.

With a vast combined axis force now in possession of Europe and with no potential threats to this situation from the west, Russia stands alone with threats on 3 flanks. With an attack coming from Finland, Poland/Rumania and from Iran/Persia (possibly turkey) Russia would probably collapse in the first 6 months after barbarossa. The advance from Iran would almost certainly reach stalingrad after a few months but this time it would be taken on the march as happened with all other Russian cities that were caught in the path of the Panzers.

Moscow would almost certainly have been taken as the southern wing, so tempting to Hitler after Smolensk, would already be under threat from the combined efforts of AGS and the advance from Iran and thus leave Moscow as the only major target worth pushing on for the panzers of AGC.

Its certainly conceivable that Russia might withstand such a blow without surrendering but a huge part of her population, natural resources and industry would be in the possession of the axis and she would not have the resources to mount a counter attack during the winter (not against the combined armies now ranged against her and with the better equipped and supplied German army.)

In the following summer campaign it is hard to imagine that Russia would not sue for peace or simply disintegrate. From that point on I cant imagine the US of A wanting to become involved in a war against the European axis powers that had crushed all of Europe and now commanded its entire resources. An invasion against the cream of the German army transferred from the east would have exactly zero chance of succeeding. It is possible that America as a nuclear power might change the course of events but that is hard to speculate on.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Qvist,

I wouldn't describe either of your criticisms as "fatal flaws". They are simply more imponderable factors that may or may not have influenced the outcome.

Absolutely. My suggestion does presuppose that it was feasible to end the war with Britain one way or the other. (It also makes a large number of other presuppositions.) However, we already know that peace was considered by some in the British cabinet and that Churchill himself underwent confidence motions during the war after serious defeats, so it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a defeat in the Middle East threatening India might both have led to Churchill's removal and a subsequent peace feeler.

We already know from the historical record what happened when Germany attacked the USSR whilst still at war with Britain. It is therefore necessary to look for other approaches that Germany might take that would avoid this situation.

My proposal is that a Mediterranean strategy against Britain in 1940-41 would have been the most promising (but by no means certain) alternative, as by this means much greater pressure might be brought to bear on the UK by threatening its core imperial interests at a time and in an area that their defences were extremely vulnerable. Of course it may still not have brought Britain to the table, but even then it might garner Germany major strategic advantages for a later campaign against the USSR.

Yup. It also supposes that the USSR would sit back. However, we know that the USSR stayed passive until June 1941 anyway, and this gives Germany a one-year window to deal with the UK. Furthermore, the only known proposals (not plans) for a Soviet attack on Germany relate directly to pre-empting the build up for Barbarossa, so the window of opportunity for dealing with the UK might well have been substantially longer if this build up occurred later.

Nor would a Mediterranean strategy divert most German army strength. We already know that, with the Italians, two or three German divisions sufficed to hold the British Empire at bay for two years in 1941-42. It is difficult to believe that the employment of, say, three or four times that number, would not have completely overthrown the British position in the Middle East in 1940-41. Furthermore, this would still leave 90% of the German Army uncommitted, and available to act as a deterrent against the USSR in the interim.

Perhaps the main obstacle to the achievement of these German Mediterranean deployments would not have been British interdiction, but Italian chauvinism.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Timo]

Ah your a German! Whats going on over there? I am part German and take real pride in that. I am shocked at the outstanding German military background. I take pride in calling myself a German American.

...why not French American or Scottish American?

I watched a TV special on the history channel about World War I, you guys are awesome!

...oh boy. I am sure the chauvinism of all modern Germans gets a tremendous boost from a 15 year old American child telling them their awsome for what the History Channel says their great-great-greatgrandfathers did in 1914-1918.

Side note: perhaps you should ask some Belgians how awsome the Germans were back then.

[2nd SS Panzer Das Reich]

I personally could not care less if you call me a child... And the Germans should be proud of the history. Why would they be ashamed of it? I don't see why on TV I see all these arab countries telling us how "evil" the US is. It only makes me proud, to see the American military marching on the cities of these countries that hate America. It makes me feel good. Many years from now I will tell my grandkids about the war on terror. But this is about World War II so enough about the war on terror.

In everyones blood there is pride to be found. And by the way I don't think many of the Bulgians who lived line are alive now. Anyway I know is the Schlieffen plan failed and the Bulgains played a major role in that.

[Timo]

I personally could not care less if you call me a child...

...did I say you should?

And the Germans should be proud of the history.

...did I say they shouldn't? It all depends on which part of their history you're referring to. Starting two world wars? Losing two world wars? The Holocaust?

Why would they be ashamed of it?

...no doubt all Germans feel great now that 15 year old Matty told them to be proud.

I don't see why on TV I see all these arab countries telling us how "evil" the US is.

...I don't see any connection with German pride.

It only makes me proud, to see the American military marching on the cities of these countries that hate America. It makes me feel good.

...That's sad, but I still don't see why this has anything to do with the German armed forces in 1914.

Many years from now I will tell my grandkids about the war on terror.

...in Arab?

But this is about World War II so enough about the war on terror.

...it was probabely too much already.

In everyones blood there is pride to be found.

...Sure, for Germans for their great scientists, philosophers, inventors, sports and history, but I should be careful when including the world wars.

And by the way I don't think many of the Bulgians who lived line are alive now.

... Bulgians?

Anyway I know is the Schlieffen plan failed and the Bulgains played a major role in that.

...I'm not talking about the failure of the Schlieffen plan. I suggest you'll look up some info about the town of Leuven in 1914. Just as an example of what I do mean.

BTW, you forgot to answer my question: why do you feel German-American and not French-American or Scottish-American?

[Richard Hedlund]

Dear Matt (2SSPDR).

I suggest that you look up what Timo said (as Leuven in WWI, Malmédy in the Battle of the Bulge, the Warsaw uprising...) before you say that you are proud of the German military. During both wars the Germans obused their power in the occupied terretories, stopped uprisings very harshly by killing women and children amongst others.

I might understand that you feel proud of the Prussian divisions for their renowned fighting ability on the battlefield (especially in the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1870). I understand that you are prouf of people like Rommel, who was a tactical mastermind who opposed the Nazis, refused to have SS in the desert etc.

When you tell people that you are proud of the Germans, to aviod misunderstandings, please be more specific which Germans you are proud of (I hope not all of them!).

[Richard Hedlund]

Lost the thread there. As to the poposed Med. campaign I would partly agree. If the Germans had captured the Middle East and the Russian oil fields in the region, and then stormed up the Cacaus, there might have been a German victory.

If the Germans could support such a large army. Consider that the army that would strike north from middle east region would have to be much larger (very much larger) than the two panzer divisions of Rommel's Africa Korps.

Did the Germans have the amount of men to attack at three fronts at the same time, all of them quite large measured in land mass.

I do wonder if the British and the Americans really would have leant back and watched the whole war; personally I doubt it. Hitler would have been forced to stop the Japanese Emperor from attacking Pearl Harbour (Harbor, sorry I speak British English), something that would have been hard since the attack was due to the fact that the US cut down their export to Japan.

[vonsalza]

Hey, historical "what if" it's a very good diversion. I want to play, too.

In september 1940, General Von Thoma was send to North Africa to avaliate the military options to Germany. He says that believe that four panzerdivisionen could be sent and supplied in North Africa. Hitler say to him that could spare only one division. Von Thoma replied that, in this case, were better to send none.

If in some moment, before December 1940, four or even three full Panzerdivisionen (and not weak outfits like the 5th Leichtdivision) were in North Africa to support Marshall Grazianni's Egytian invasion, the British would have been thrown away from Suez and the Nile. And in few months, Jerusalem could have fallen to the Germans, maybe that were to be the true Operation BARBAROSSA: the unfinished work of Emperor Frederick I, The Redbeard, since 1190...

Of course that the Germans will have to fight the stupidity of Mussolini and make him to delay the first Italian invasion of Egypt until the Panzerdivisionen arrived...

When the first German soldier put your feet in Egypt, one insurrection could have arise. In October 1942, the Muslim Brothers (forbears of Al-Qaida) were prepared to attack the British, if Rommel had win in El Alamein. The same could occur in Irak (in 1941, Hashid Ali uprising here have to be smashed by the British).

Of course, the Germans will have to fight the stupity of Mussolini and make him to not try annex Egypt and another Arab lands.

If around june 1941, the Axis Power take Suez; Irak and Persian Gulf with support of the Muslim (remember that until 1943, Arab volunteers were serving with the Germans in Tunisia and Greece), how can be possible that the United Kingdom could to feed your war machine? Without petrol? Without access to Eastern Mediterranean?

None British expeditionary forces could be send to Greece; the Germans could to capture Crete and Malta with few hardships. All the Mediterranean was to be closed to the Royal Navy.

With this success, the Germans could to wait one more year to launch your obscene Invasion of Russia (with another name, remember, Barbarossa were to be the capture of Jerusalem ). That operation could be more easy. Maybe with one simultaneous offensive into the Caucasus, with Turkish and Arab support.

By the way, if the Germans take control of the Persian Gulf, until June 1941, the US petrol blocade against Japan could be irrelevant. And, maybe the Japanese could be convinced to change your mind and to invade Mongolia and Vladivostok in 1942, and not to attack the Americans in 1941.

Thus, in June 1942, the Russians could to confront Germans in the European frontier; Germans, Italians, Turks, Arabs, in the Caucasus (with Chechens uprisings, don't forget) and Japanese in Mongolia.

But, one more simple alternative to a (God forbade!) German victory were to raise the Ukrainian national flag in Kiev, in September 1941. And to make the same in the Baltic states and Belarus. And to proclaim the end of Bolchevism.

It's so good to fight big wars from our chair. Nobody shoot us...

[1871]

Timo

Your posts suggest an irrational hatred of Germany.

You are not German - of course - but feel expert in critical offence and insult.

You consult what you pretend to be your uncritical past in your ideological condemnation. And attempt to apply that notion to the present - mere political dogmatism - rather than historical fact or knowledge.

You find it strange that someone is of German-American heritage?

You would feel more pleased if they were French, Irish, English or of Polish extraction? It would appear you have no knowledge of American history or the German-British military tradition of America. And it appears you come here to attack contributors on a forum for German Army discussion. This is not an area for outdated, old-time Soviets like yourself.

Or perhaps you are merely a simple bigot.

-

[2nd SS Panzer Das Reich]

Dear Matt (2SSPDR).

I suggest that you look up what Timo said (as Leuven in WWI, Malmédy in the Battle of the Bulge, the Warsaw uprising...) before you say that you are proud of the German military. During both wars the Germans obused their power in the occupied terretories, stopped uprisings very harshly by killing women and children amongst others.

I might understand that you feel proud of the Prussian divisions for their renowned fighting ability on the battlefield (especially in the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1870). I understand that you are prouf of people like Rommel, who was a tactical mastermind who opposed the Nazis, refused to have SS in the desert etc.

When you tell people that you are proud of the Germans, to aviod misunderstandings, please be more specific which Germans you are proud of (I hope not all of them!).

I am not a fan of the Nazi ideals. I like the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS for the way they fought. I am just a German military fan. I like people like Otto Skorzeny, Michael Wittman, Adolf Galland, Udrich Rudel, Josef "Seep" Dietrich, Erwin Rommel, Heinz Guderian, Erich Manstein, And other great heroes.

I am however not a fan of Hitler, Himmler, Goring, Hydrich, Or any of the other evil men of the Nazi party. I feel the way about the Wehrmacht they way the rednecks in the south US feel about the Confederates. They lost the war but their spirt is forever. I look at the hard fighting men of the Wehrmacht and I am awed by it. I look at the fact they took on many world powers alone- yet they came so close to victory.

[Christoph Awender]

2ndSSPanzer, with this post you show again that your oppinions are not based on information but rather on myths and a lot of fantasy.

You say:

I am not a fan of the Nazi ideals.

And then you list your heroes (how ridiculous!):

Otto Skorzeny, Michael Wittman, Adolf Galland, Udrich Rudel, Josef "Seep" Dietrich, Erwin Rommel, Heinz Guderian, Erich Manstein

Everybody else will know that these two statements together make no sense at all. If they are really your heroes then I would recommend to read something about some of them and then you will know why these two comments together are absolute nonsense!
When will you stop to boast with your not existing knowledge.

\Christoph

[1871]

Perhaps you can take time to explain what you find offensive with regard to Heinz Guderian?

Perhaps even Erwin Rommel?

Then you may then accuse, Wittman, Galland and Rudel of being German and also professional.

Have you criticized American General Patton of indiscrection?

I have to wonder your meaning and partiality. Do you have any understanding of the German military? Or are you merely another ignorant political suggester and pretender that pollutes the forum in order to disrupt proper discussion?

-