DISCUSSIONS
All of you guys ... sooo true! ;)
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
I thought of something new......then forgot it...
But I agree that if Germany had successfully seized the oil fields near Baku they would have taken Russia, Then GB then, India? and Africa, then possibly China, then USA would have had no hope.
Another reason was lack of total war production throughout the war, unlike GB Germany did not start total war doctrine till 1944.
btw without basically the exact same circumstances NSDAP would never have gained power.
In order to know how to use free will, we must first know how to fight for it.
Guess a fundamental constraint is the Nazi ideology itself right from the beginng, means everything beyond expansionism, in particular the racist element.
One shouldn't perhaps speak that technically about a genocide, however the loss of intelligence, ressources and manpower can not be underestimated. Moreover, treatment of civilians in eastern Europe was simply stupid. After twenty years of bolsheviki terror many people, especially in Ukraine regarded the german invaders as liberating forces - in the first days at least, couldn't imagine that anything could be worse than Stalin killing millions of his own population. We know what happened then. Therefore, strong resistance and morale growing in the Red Army were based on the 'to be or not to be' alternative, combined with the national russian element Stalin cleverly emphasized later.
Third, leadership. A totalitarian regime is at first easier to lead, quicker actions. Long term, democracies are superior due more diversified directions of thinking (development) and questioning of fundamental decisions, Hitler was a desaster as a military leader. The above was also true for the USSR by the way, but Stalin could compensate by sending countless waves of men into the fire. An individual's life has never counted in Russia.
You asked the wrong question, it should have been German successes and the posting would be shorter...........
"Courage which goes against military expediency is stupidity, or, if it is insisted upon by a commander, irresponsibility." - Erwin Rommel
Aungi said
You asked the wrong question, it should have been German successes and the posting would be shorter...........
It would probably be longer. Most of the failures posted here are minor ones which had bigger knock on effects or the failures can be grouped into a certain event. Modern warfare (not the game xD) and most modern weapons are from German ideas and inventions during the WW2 period
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
On second thought, I don't think we should be criticizing Hitler, and all the other commanders of the German military during WW2. Instead, we should be praising them for their mistakes. Right?
I mean, imagine if Operation Typhoon was a success, and Germany captured Moscow. The Soviet Union would've lost right there.
If Rommel was given enough troops, he would've moved on to conquer the middle east.
So, instead, we should be praising Hitler for not ordering the breakout at Stalingrad, and thanking him because he cost Germany that oh-so-pivotal battle.
We should be praising Hitler for invading Poland in 1939, without that, Great Britain and France wouldn't have declared war on Germany, starting WW2.
Who agrees with me now, from a point of view, that Hitler was a genius, and we should praise him for destroying his own country. Without Hitler starting off WW2, the world would be a very different place today. Still, from a German or rather, Nazi, point of view, Hitler was an idiot and should have been burned at the stake minutes after he took power.
TehBoss said
On second thought, I don't think we should be criticizing Hitler, and all the other commanders of the German military during WW2. Instead, we should be praising them for their mistakes. Right?
I mean, imagine if Operation Typhoon was a success, and Germany captured Moscow. The Soviet Union would've lost right there.
If Rommel was given enough troops, he would've moved on to conquer the middle east.
So, instead, we should be praising Hitler for not ordering the breakout at Stalingrad, and thanking him because he cost Germany that oh-so-pivotal battle.
We should be praising Hitler for invading Poland in 1939, without that, Great Britain and France wouldn't have declared war on Germany, starting WW2.
Who agrees with me now, from a point of view, that Hitler was a genius, and we should praise him for destroying his own country. Without Hitler starting off WW2, the world would be a very different place today. Still, from a German or rather, Nazi, point of view, Hitler was an idiot and should have been burned at the stake minutes after he took power.
Ok, i guess.
One Hundred Men= 1 Sweetart
- Lakaq
- location: Unknown
- joined: Jul 19, 2010
- posts: 77
The German army minus Hitler and the Nazis was one of the most effective fighting armies ever seen and their weaponry was just awesome. I think that people come up with those what ifs purely looking at the German army and being impressed at what it achieved.
When people come up with these what ifs I don't believe they wanted Nazism to spread around the world. I just believe people enjoy wondering what could have happened. Human curiosity :P
Hitler was amazing for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Bravo I say xD
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
Its pretty amazing he got as far as he did. I would rather not repeat the whole series of events though Ian, so no Bravo here.
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
I was saying bravo sarcastically at how inept Hitler was at being a military commander :P
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
Hmm. Not so much a commander as a strategist. Probably a serious case of Beginner's Luck, but quite a few of his successful_ military decisions up to 1941 pointedly went against "conventional wisdom". And unfortunately for everybody, that winning streak convinced him that he was infallible. Like every other compulsive gambler, he got to thinking, "We WILL win because I always win, eventually.
An interesting What-if to add to all the others: Imagine what would have happened if one of Hitler's very early gambits had failed gloriously. Like he attempt to annex the Sudetenland failed miserably and he learns that just wanting something really bad wasn't enough to get it. He becomes more cautious and conservative and less likely to take big gambles. Instead of invading the USSR in June 1941, he finishes operations in the West before he decides to turn his attention Eastward. The UK falls and ALL of Europe becomes part of the Axis.
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
This have been said before ... but probebly every body agrees with me about this: HITLER was the main reason why Die Wehrmacht didnt won over USSR and why whole Germany millitary collapsed!
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
thegeniusmartin said
This have been said before ... but probebly every body agrees with me about this: HITLER was the main reason why Die Wehrmacht didnt won over USSR and why whole Germany millitary collapsed!
With or without Hitler, Germany couldn't win in the Battle of Russia as it was fought - basically because of the size of the forces and resources.
MODS: Deadlock: making-history.com/asset/1317 ; TCBTS: making-history.com/asset/384091 ; Zombie Apocalypse: making-history.com/asset/368403 ; Onslaught: making-history.com/asset/418213
Njaa ... If Hitler woudnt interfered in the millitary tactixs and plans then Britain would have been crushed. Count on that the oil fields in Iraq and Middle East would end up in German hands. And with a bigger stock with oil they could much easier take over Russia. Moscow would have fall just as Leningrad! After that it is hard to prodict how it woul end ... maybe Stalin would have tried to make peace so that he could withdraw in to the Urals ... maybe he had countinued the war ... !
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
Odanan said
thegeniusmartin said
This have been said before ... but probebly every body agrees with me about this: HITLER was the main reason why Die Wehrmacht didnt won over USSR and why whole Germany millitary collapsed!
With or without Hitler, Germany couldn't win in the Battle of Russia as it was fought - basically because of the size of the forces and resources.
I have a different opinion of this xD.
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
Its simple...Germany did not have the population or resources to push through the vastness of Soviet territory and their hordes of peasant Armies that were sent in waves of tens of thousands to overwhelm the exhausted and underequipped German armies...remember that 75% of Germans killed were killed by Russians.
I bought a book last month ("If the Allies had Fallen", Showalter & Deutsch publishing) that 20 historians discuss about alternate scenarios of World War II. They agreed that Germany couldn't win the Battle of Russia after it started.
The only IF is how the Nazis treated the occupied people (Belorussians, Ukrainian, etc.). If they had come as liberators, they would have a greater chance of success.
MODS: Deadlock: making-history.com/asset/1317 ; TCBTS: making-history.com/asset/384091 ; Zombie Apocalypse: making-history.com/asset/368403 ; Onslaught: making-history.com/asset/418213
Odanan said
I bought a book last month ("If the Allies had Fallen", Showalter & Deutsch publishing) that 20 historians discuss about alternate scenarios of World War II. They agreed that Germany couldn't win the Battle of Russia after it started.
The only IF is how the Nazis treated the occupied people (Belorussians, Ukrainian, etc.). If they had come as liberators, they would have a greater chance of success.
I read two books by different historians about the German attack on Russia. They successfully argued most of the arguments used by other historians as to why Germany couldn't have won was wrong. The reason Germany lost was laying siege to Leningrad instead of attacking it (at one point the Germans could have caught Leningrad undefended but Manstein didn't attack as he believed he didn't have sufficient forces even though he did) and postponing the attack on Moscow for attacking Russian forces in the Ukraine. Later in the war there was also a point where Stalingrad could have been took undefended but the panzer forces needed for this task was diverted towards Baku. Later on they were re-diverted to Stalingrad. They lost as Hitler constantly changed the point of attack and didn't regard Moscow as the primary objective until it was too late. The original invasion plans called for a large single thrust to Moscow with a secondary thrust towards Kiev
Colorado said
Its simple...Germany did not have the population or resources to push through the vastness of Soviet territory and their hordes of peasant Armies that were sent in waves of tens of thousands to overwhelm the exhausted and underequipped German armies...remember that 75% of Germans killed were killed by Russians.
I believe they did have the men and resources to get to the AA line (keeping control of it was another matter). Also at the end of 1941 during Operation Typhoon the Soviets at one point had no reserves left. Only after the German attack on Stalingrad was thwarted did the huge manpower and industrial advantage swing in favour of Russia and exhaustion and being underequipped only truly affected the Germans on a large scale at the very end of 1941.
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
Had the Germans continue their thrust to Moscow in August 1941 or earlier, they would face a massive defense and they would expose their right flank to a sizable Soviet force.
The Germans had at that time the equivalent of 83 divisions (having lost 20% of their total force and 50% of the Panzer divisions so far) against 300 Soviet divisions - not considering the new wave of 13 reserve armies to arrive in the next 3 months.
I think the Germans couldn't win that one.
MODS: Deadlock: making-history.com/asset/1317 ; TCBTS: making-history.com/asset/384091 ; Zombie Apocalypse: making-history.com/asset/368403 ; Onslaught: making-history.com/asset/418213
Odanan said
Had the Germans continue their thrust to Moscow in August 1941 or earlier, they would face a massive defense and they would expose their right flank to a sizable Soviet force.
The Germans had at that time the equivalent of 83 divisions (having lost 20% of their total force and 50% of the Panzer divisions so far) against 300 Soviet divisions - not considering the new wave of 13 reserve armies to arrive in the next 3 months.
I think the Germans couldn't win that one.
As of October 1st 1941
Germany:
1,000,000 men, 1,700 tanks, 14,000 guns, 549 aircraft
Russia:
1,250,000 men, 1,000 tanks, 7,600 guns, 936 aircraft
Casualties:
Germany: 280,000-400,000 (including reserves)
Russia: 650,000–1,280,000 (including reserves)
I believe the Germans could have won
This is even after Hitlers errors since the beginning of the invasion and they still had the chance to win. It was too late when they attacked though
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
