Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/13/2006 11:19:57 AM EDT
Everything I keep hearing leads me to believe Germany might have won WWII if he had not be such a micromanager and followed his military leaders advice.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:20:48 AM EDT
I think they would have had a better shot if he wasn't batshit looney and diverted resources to researching the occult and what not.......
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:22:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:22:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Everything I keep hearing leads me to believe Germany might have won WWII if he had not be such a micromanager and followed his military leaders advice.



The conservatives on the general staff would have killed blitzkrieg and fought a more traditional war, which very well may have cost them the battle with France, who actually had more numerous tanks with stronger armor. They simply didn't have the training or structure necessary to handle blitzkrieg.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:23:28 AM EDT
Germany would probably own half of Europe if he hadn't been so ambitious. The US did not care what he was doing until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on us.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:23:40 AM EDT
No way.

60 million Germans versus a half a billion Allies? Please. It was only a matter of time.

G
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:23:47 AM EDT
If Hitler did a few things differently, like listened to his generals about strategy in Russia, and let the Luftwaffe deploy ME262s as they wanted, things might have been different.
Germany would certainly have lasted longer than it did.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:26:10 AM EDT
Yup, I have heard that too... the "The Allies' best asset was Hitler himself....."

Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:26:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DOW:
If Hitler did a few things differently, like listened to his generals about strategy in Russia, and let the Luftwaffe deploy ME262s as they wanted, things might have been different.
Germany would certainly have lasted longer than it did.



+1

But thank God he made some big mistakes.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:27:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By glock23carry:
No way.

60 million Germans versus a half a billion Allies? Please. It was only a matter of time.


You forget that if Hitler was reigned-in, Germany would not have invaded the Soviet Union.

Game over for the rest of us.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:30:16 AM EDT
They would have fought at some point regardless. Stalin and Hitler just would not have been able to remain at peace.

Secondly, ifs and buts ain't candy and nuts. Nah nah nah nah!

G
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:30:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By glock23carry:
No way.

60 million Germans versus a half a billion Allies? Please. It was only a matter of time.


You forget that if Hitler was reigned-in, Germany would not have invaded the Soviet Union.

Game over for the rest of us.




+1

One of his many blunders. Another was not letting Rommel release the Panzer divisions when he wanted to on D-Day.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:32:05 AM EDT
If Germany goes to full war time production on June 22nd, 1941 they win the war.

Not utilizing their full production capability until something like 1944 is what lost them the war. Not Hitler's micromanagement.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:33:05 AM EDT
Germany lost the war when it attacked Russia, if it hadn't it could have held the continent long enough to discourage the allies, and retained it by peace treaty, IF Hitler hadn't been such a loon.

We may never have known of the horrors of the camps and so on, not until long after the peace treaty was signed, if Hitler were wise enough to quit while he was ahead.

It's unlikely Russia would have entered the war over Poland and Austria, but
Hitler had to push further east, and the Russians decimated his army.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:33:58 AM EDT
i think he might have had a shot if he had not invaded russia before finishing off england.

i think he still might have had a shot had he let the sixth army try to break out and retreat from the stalingrad pocket instead of demanding that the army stand it's ground only to be encircled and captured en masse.

after losing the battle of stalingrad and suffing the annihilation of most of army group south, he was doomed.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:37:34 AM EDT
Ya, but there are some things to consider: Would the US really be in a position to leverage all that man power if they couldn’t land? If Hitler didn’t stop the troops short at Dun Kirk, then there would have been little left in the way of British Infantry. If he then didn’t divert air assets to the London Blitz, and actually proceeded with Operation Sea Lion, where would the US be able to marshal troops and equipment? With no England, there could be no opening of the second front. The US would have to land where? Africa? That’s a long way away with wolf packs prowling the Atlantic, and then they’d have to come up either the Straights of Gibraltar or Sicily.
My friends and I have been talking about this off and on since elementary (no joke) and we seem to shift one way then the other. I think that there is also a lager dynamic and that is the very mindset of the German Military. I just finished a book on that subject and one of the greatest problems specific to the Wehrmacht was its dependence on an established Chain of Command. The US, Brits, and Russians would continue the fight in the absence of officer and NCO classes. The Germans would not. Sure it was Hitler’s directive, but I can’t help but think of the Normandy Invasion and Rommel’s plan to put Panzers on the beach. I think that we would have been pushed back into the sea and the American populace at the time **might** have given up involvement in Europe.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:38:15 AM EDT
There is nothing Hitler could've done to save his arse after June 22, 1941. On this date he invaded the Soviet Union. After that day, the war was simply a matter of numbers and time. The Allies had superior amounts of both to spare. The Germans did not. One can't pick a fight with the entire world and expect to win.

Galland
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:39:11 AM EDT
hitler was finished when he couldn't cross the English channel. it was just a matter of time from then on.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:41:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Galland:
There is nothing Hitler could've done to save his arse after June 22, 1941. On this date he invaded the Soviet Union. After that day, the war was simply a matter of numbers and time. The Allies had superior amounts of both to spare. The Germans did not. One can't pick a fight with the entire world and expect to win.

Galland



disagree. hitler would have had a good chance had he not been so pigheaded about capturing stalingrad at all costs, and instead bypassed it and went on to more important targets, like the oil producing regions of the causacus.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:41:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Galland:
There is nothing Hitler could've done to save his arse after June 22, 1941. On this date he invaded the Soviet Union. After that day, the war was simply a matter of numbers and time. The Allies had superior amounts of both to spare. The Germans did not. One can't pick a fight with the entire world and expect to win.

Galland



I used to say the same thing, but there are some Historians that feel that Stalin was poised to break the treaty and go streaming into Germany. We may never know, but there are some that say that that’s what the build-up in Stalingrad was there for. It’s not like Stalin was logical and sane guy! :)
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:46:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By glock23carry:
They would have fought at some point regardless. Stalin and Hitler just would not have been able to remain at peace.

Secondly, ifs and buts ain't candy and nuts. Nah nah nah nah!


The point of this thread was to discuss the possibility of keeping Hitler from losing the war.

Based on that premise, if the German Generals could have kept Hitler from ordering an invasion of the Soviet Union, Western Europe (namely, Great Britain) was doomed to hell. The U.S. would have fought like a rabid dog to free England but we would have failed in that endeavor.

Germany invading Russia was what doomed the Axis.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:48:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PzIvF2s:
Would the US really be in a position to leverage all that man power if they couldn’t land?


+1

Sometimes I really hate this site. If you're not one of the first 5 posters someone will already say what you planned to say.

PzIvF2s not only said it better but his user name is a really cool tank. Some like Panthers (because it was a better tank) but I like the PZ-4. A workhorse from the beginning to the end.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:49:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fourays2:
hitler was finished when he couldn't cross the English channel. it was just a matter of time from then on.


Nope. He lost when he invaded the Soviet Union. Had he not invaded to the east, the English Channel and everything on the other side of it was Germany's.

He couldn't cross the channel because he invaded Russia.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:54:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gks452:

Originally Posted By PzIvF2s:
Would the US really be in a position to leverage all that man power if they couldn’t land?


+1

Sometimes I really hate this site. If you're not one of the first 5 posters someone will already say what you planned to say.

PzIvF2s not only said it better but his user name is a really cool tank. Some like Panthers (because it was a better tank) but I like the PZ-4. A workhorse from the beginning to the end.



Exactly! The Panther, the Tiger, the Jagdtiger, man those are the Cadillacs! The F2s would eat Sherman’s by the dozens! It’s just like comparing the T-34 to the JS-III, the T-34 was a fine tank.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:55:14 AM EDT
What if the war in Europe was still ongoing in August, 1945, and assuming the US is still in the ETO at that point? Would we have used the atomic bomb on targets in Germany before Japan? IIRC, the first two bombs weren't completed until the end of July/begining of August. Might be a moot point for Germany at that point.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:57:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 11:58:07 AM EDT by Wobblin-Goblin]

Originally Posted By eagle88:
What if the war in Europe was still ongoing in August, 1945, and assuming the US is still in the ETO at that point? Would we have used the atomic bomb on targets in Germany before Japan?


Nope. No chance. The Fat Man and Little Boy had "To Japan with Love" written all over them.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:58:12 AM EDT
It most certainly is safe to say that the Allies chances would have been much dimmer if Hitler didn't meddle so much. It just might be possible that the Germans could have won in Russia if he let the generals run the war. They were ever so close to taking Moscow but Hitler decided to waste an entire army at Stalingrad instead. Of course there was so much more to the Reich's downfall than just that , it's just one of many examples.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:01:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HunterHR:
If Germany goes to full war time production on June 22nd, 1941 they win the war.

Not utilizing their full production capability until something like 1944 is what lost them the war. Not Hitler's micromanagement.



There were those who wanted to ramp up production much sooner in the war but Hitler said NO. Hitler did not want the citizens to experience shortages because that would not be good for morale.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:02:06 PM EDT
Right, but by the end of the summer, the war in Europe had been over for over three months. Wasn't the Allied strategy win Europe 1st, then concentrate on the Pacific. If the war in the ETO was still ongoing, would the US make the same decision?
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:03:06 PM EDT
Does this really matter 60 years later? What if Hitler's mom had swallowed? End of discussion.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:04:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eagle88:
What if the war in Europe was still ongoing in August, 1945, and assuming the US is still in the ETO at that point? Would we have used the atomic bomb on targets in Germany before Japan? IIRC, the first two bombs weren't completed until the end of July/begining of August. Might be a moot point for Germany at that point.



I read something about that. Bear with me, this isn’t my thoughts, but there are many people who feel that we wouldn’t have dropped it on the Germans because they look too much like US. It was easier to drop them on the Japanese because they “looked” different and as such were easier to vilify. Don’t know about that. For that matter, the Germans **might** have had them too. The Allies recovered plans for a 2 stage, gyroscopically guided missile that would have been capable of hitting mainland US (New York at least). Who knows what would have been produced in those late days if they had more time. We know the missile would have worked because our space program was based on it…Oh, great, let’s not start talking about the Scientist grab at the end of the war. That way only leads to the discussion of the Ethics of using the data gathered by experimenting on prisoners and that’s an equally tricky discussion!
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:05:09 PM EDT
yes--if germany had taken out GB first they would have had a chance to take on russia

as soon as hitler opened another 2 front war (something the high German COs from WWI knew NOT to do, but obviously hitler was stupid Germany was screwed

Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:06:07 PM EDT
What is scary is if Hitler could have convinced the Japanese to work with them in taking Russia out rather than seeing them attack America. Not saying the outcome would have been any different, but it's possible that America would have entered the war MUCH later.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:06:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 12:07:08 PM EDT by HunterHR]

Originally Posted By The_Sgt_Rock:

Originally Posted By HunterHR:
If Germany goes to full war time production on June 22nd, 1941 they win the war.

Not utilizing their full production capability until something like 1944 is what lost them the war. Not Hitler's micromanagement.



There were those who wanted to ramp up production much sooner in the war but Hitler said NO. Hitler did not want the citizens to experience shortages because that would not be good for morale.



That wasn't so much micromanagement as a strategic decision to keep the masses happy.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:08:31 PM EDT
The loss at the Battle of Britan was the beginning of the end for the Nazis.


If the British isles would have been captured, then the US would have had a hell of a time trying to bomb the crap out of the Rhineland.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:10:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 12:11:48 PM EDT by gks452]

Originally Posted By Galland:
There is nothing Hitler could've done to save his arse after June 22, 1941. On this date he invaded the Soviet Union. After that day, the war was simply a matter of numbers and time. The Allies had superior amounts of both to spare. The Germans did not. One can't pick a fight with the entire world and expect to win.

Galland



I actually blame Germany's loss of the war on the Italian invasion of Yugoslavia.

Germany was to invade the USSR in early May but they got involved in Yugoslavia to bail out the Italians. This delayed the invasion of the USSR by six weeks. With 6 more weeks of good weather Germany might have captured both Moscow and Leningrad. Then the German troops would have spent the winter indoors instead of loosing 1/4 million men outside. With these men they could have taken Stalingrad and saved another 1/4 million men. With an extra 1/2 million men they could have crossed the Urals destroyed the soviet factories and defeated the USSR in 1942.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:13:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Everything I keep hearing leads me to believe Germany might have won WWII if he had not be such a micromanager and followed his military leaders advice.



Germany simply didn't have the logistics or materials to win WWII. They could have made it a lot harder for them to be defeated and could have stretched out the war, but ultimatly they would have lost to the logisitcs of the Allies (mainly the manpower of the USSR and the material producing ability of the US)
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:14:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By glock23carry:
No way.

60 million Germans versus a half a billion Allies? Please. It was only a matter of time.


You forget that if Hitler was reigned-in, Germany would not have invaded the Soviet Union.

Game over for the rest of us.



Stalin had always planned on attacking Germany, Hitler just beat him to the punch. War between Germany and the USSR was inevitable.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:15:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Everything I keep hearing leads me to believe Germany might have won WWII if he had not be such a micromanager and followed his military leaders advice.



No, the atomic bomb was originally designed with Germany in mind.

The ONLY way he could have won would have been to defeat or come to terms with England PRIOR to the US entry into the war.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:16:27 PM EDT
I disagree with everyone who says the war was lost for Germany on June 21, 1941.

Germany had Russia on the ropes by December of 41. Had Germany not got involved in Greece and the Balkans at the behest of Mussolini and his inept Army, Barbarossa would have started as scheduled in APRIL of 41. Assuming it went the same, the German would have been at Moscows door by October of 41 and still had two months of decent campaigning until December.

If the Germans would have have occupied Moscow, and been able to hunker down with shelter, they could have maintained their lines. It was the winter weather, lack of any adequate shelter and real defense lines and the fresh Siberian Divsions that forced the German line back in December of 41.

The lines stabilized fairly quickly, and with the coming of spring in 42 the offensive resumed with very good results...until Stalingrad. If they wouldn't have lost that ground in the winter of 41-42, their spring offensive and summer/fall campaigns in 42 might have been able to push to the A-A line...the line from Archangelsk to Astrahkan, and the industrial, farming, raw material and most importantly oil areas would have all been in German hands....

Even so....

Instead of diverting units from Army Group Center in the fall of 41 to help Army Group North with Leningrad, Hitler should have kept Army Group Center at full strength in his drive to Moscow. Let Leningrad wither on the vine. Same with Stalingrad in late summer of 42...bypass it, cut it off, let it starve and wither. He should have let Army Group South charge balls out for the Caucauses and the oil regions....

Oil and fuel was the real killer...the Germans were building more planes and tanks in '44 and '45 than they had all war, despite the bombing campaign. They had no fuel to get them to the fronts and operate them.

If Hitler had let his Generals more free reign, I think Germany could have, would have won. The Battle of Britain... the British have said, if Hitler wouldn't have switched the focus to bombing cities instead of hitting the RAF bases, the Brits would've run out of Air Force....

D-Day was closer than many think...IF Rommel had been able to keep the tanks at the coast, or at least move them to Normandy when he wanted, things might have been way different. Read "Overlord" by Max Hastings (his father covered the invasion for a Brit paper). Interesting and eye opening read. If the invasion would've failed right there, it would have been 1947 at the earliest before another could be attempted....
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:17:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By eagle88:
What if the war in Europe was still ongoing in August, 1945, and assuming the US is still in the ETO at that point? Would we have used the atomic bomb on targets in Germany before Japan?


Nope. No chance. The Fat Man and Little Boy had "To Japan with Love" written all over them.



Wrong, the atomic bombs were always designed for Germany. Germany was our number 1 priority, we didn't nuke them because they surrendered before we had them finished.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:18:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By eagle88:
What if the war in Europe was still ongoing in August, 1945, and assuming the US is still in the ETO at that point? Would we have used the atomic bomb on targets in Germany before Japan?


Nope. No chance. The Fat Man and Little Boy had "To Japan with Love" written all over them.



If D Day had failed we would have used them on Germany. That is why we began in the first place.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:20:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pzjgr:
I disagree with everyone who says the war was lost for Germany on June 21, 1941.

Germany had Russia on the ropes by December of 41. Had Germany not got involved in Greece and the Balkans at the behest of Mussolini and his inept Army, Barbarossa would have started as scheduled in APRIL of 41. Assuming it went the same, the German would have been at Moscows door by October of 41 and still had two months of decent campaigning until December.

If the Germans would have have occupied Moscow, and been able to hunker down with shelter, they could have maintained their lines. It was the winter weather, lack of any adequate shelter and real defense lines and the fresh Siberian Divsions that forced the German line back in December of 41.

The lines stabilized fairly quickly, and with the coming of spring in 42 the offensive resumed with very good results...until Stalingrad. If they wouldn't have lost that ground in the winter of 41-42, their spring offensive and summer/fall campaigns in 42 might have been able to push to the A-A line...the line from Archangelsk to Astrahkan, and the industrial, farming, raw material and most importantly oil areas would have all been in German hands....

Even so....

Instead of diverting units from Army Group Center in the fall of 41 to help Army Group North with Leningrad, Hitler should have kept Army Group Center at full strength in his drive to Moscow. Let Leningrad wither on the vine. Same with Stalingrad in late summer of 42...bypass it, cut it off, let it starve and wither. He should have let Army Group South charge balls out for the Caucauses and the oil regions....

Oil and fuel was the real killer...the Germans were building more planes and tanks in '44 and '45 than they had all war, despite the bombing campaign. They had no fuel to get them to the fronts and operate them.

If Hitler had let his Generals more free reign, I think Germany could have, would have won. The Battle of Britain... the British have said, if Hitler wouldn't have switched the focus to bombing cities instead of hitting the RAF bases, the Brits would've run out of Air Force....

D-Day was closer than many think...IF Rommel had been able to keep the tanks at the coast, or at least move them to Normandy when he wanted, things might have been way different. Read "Overlord" by Max Hastings (his father covered the invasion for a Brit paper). Interesting and eye opening read. If the invasion would've failed right there, it would have been 1947 at the earliest before another could be attempted....



+1

hell, the ONLY real, underlying reason why the US/GB/non-commie, western allies even progressed w/ D-Day was that they realized that the Russians were going to smoke Germany and possibly push on beyond and into France

who would stop stalin? trade a psychomaniac facist dictator for another psychomanic commie dictator...dont think so?

so the allies decied that they had to do D-day to ensure that they prevented the USSR from taking ALL of EU
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:25:24 PM EDT
Germany lost because they had no strategic air force. The Russians were able to move their vital war industries beyond the range of the Luftwaffe and churn out tanks and planes.

Imagine if Germany had large numbers of B17 or B24 similar aircraft and attacked the airbases all over England. No way could the daylight bombing campaign even got off the ground.

Germany had the lessons of 35 and 36 but mis-interpreted them. They never planned on long campaigns. Start in the spring and be done before fall.

rj
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:29:19 PM EDT
No.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:52:20 PM EDT
Battle of the Bulge is one on my favorite movies. Robert Shaw's potrayal of a German General commanding a force of tanks comes to mind.

The Germans have captured some GI's and one of them has in his possession a cake that his family sent him.

The General [Shaw] says something to the effect that he knows the war is lost when his men go without boots, clothing,gasoline and supplies and the Americans can get a cake to one of their soldiers on the other side of the world in the middle of a war.

What does that tell you?
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:54:01 PM EDT
If Hitler would have listened to his genreals early in teh war, Germansy would not have gotten as far as they did so quickly.

But, if Hitler would have listened to his generals middle to late in the war, I believe the war would have went on for another 12 to 18 months. But that is about it. The Soviets were Hell bent for election for Berlin (and the rest of Europe), and the allies had way too much GNP going against the Germans from day one.

Germany could not have won WWII under almost any circumstance. Japan would have had to have a beachhead in San Diego, LA, and San Fran to even begin thinking about how Germany cold have won WWII in Europe. Against the Soviets alone... **maybe**. But highly doubtful. Too many variables.

But, that is the benefit of hindsight, I guess.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 1:08:50 PM EDT
Had he not invaded Russia the Nazi-commie pact would have held and the US 5th column commies would have insisted that we stay out of the war - they were the big pacifists of the time.... only after Stalin was under the gun did they go whole heartedly pro-unconditional surrender.

That's also why WW2 was universally supported on the homefront.

But suppose he waited until his V weapons had come on line before invading and then the generals took over.... say, 1945 or even 1950... it's possible that Germany could have knocked Russia all the way back to the Volga - and out beyond. Once defeated there, a victorious German war machine would probably be unstoppable.

They'd have had jet fighters and bombers, ICBMs, etc. way before we did.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 1:10:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bigscrun:
In battles versus Europe, Yes. Against the US, we simply had to much in the way of man power, natural resources and manufacturing.



But if the Germans played their cards right, we would have never gotten involved in the war.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 1:12:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bigscrun:
In battles versus Europe, Yes. Against the US, we simply had to much in the way of man power, natural resources and manufacturing.



Perhaps, but his technology would have been far ahead of ours, especially if he'd decided not to declare war on us for the hell of it.

It's a crying shame that Newt Gingrich never wrote the sequel to 1945. Would've kicked ass!
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 1:13:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Germany lost the war when it attacked Russia, if it hadn't it could have held the continent long enough to discourage the allies, and retained it by peace treaty, IF Hitler hadn't been such a loon.

We may never have known of the horrors of the camps and so on, not until long after the peace treaty was signed, if Hitler were wise enough to quit while he was ahead.

It's unlikely Russia would have entered the war over Poland and Austria, but
Hitler had to push further east, and the Russians decimated his army.



IMO, the Germans could have easily conquered Russia, if they played it smart.
"We are here to liberate you from the evils of the communists!"
If you bill it like that, you would have all the ethnic minorities within the USSR fighting for you, or at least not impeding your progress.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top