Advertisement
by Nueo Soled » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:55 am
by Vulcan Prime » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:58 am
Absurrania wrote:If they hadn't horribly betrayed the USSR, and not been focused on the Holocaust(which they should have just left for after the war), they would have a secure eastern front. On the western side, they should not have been messing with American ships, and they should have kept the bombing focused on Britain's military instead of switching to civilian population and allowing the RAF to rebuild itself. If Japan hadn't bombed Pear Harbor, and the U-boats had been held back, the U.S would have probably stayed out of the war, and with Britain unable to assist their fallen comrades, Hitler might have won, if he forced Britain to surrender instead of trying to invade the entire country.
Of course, that's a lot of ifs.
Hitler lost, and I'm not torn up about it. In fact, I'm rather happy he did, since he was a little maniacal.
Even if he won, a war with the USSR would have probably broken out over eastern influences and etc, and the constant resistance fighting in western Europe and eventualy re-enter of Britain would probably cause the downfall of the Theird Reich. They were too damn crazy.
by Purpelia » Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:03 am
by Absurrania » Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:09 am
Purpelia wrote:Hitler wasn't Maniacal, he was an artist. There is a reason why serious politicians don't go into art and serious artists should not be allowed into politics. After all, was it not Nero who artistically plaid his fiddle during the great fire of Rome?
* For the love of all that is science don't take this post seriously.
by Spirit of Hope » Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:29 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Manchovia » Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:52 am
by Trotskylvania » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:10 am
Asigna wrote:To defeat Britian, Hitler must ignore Franco, invade Spain and capture Gibraltar. Since Spain just recovered from a civil war and is too weak to participate in actual full combat, Spain would had easily fallen into the hands of the Nazis while Franco, a half jew, might had been part of the statistics of the Holocaust. The ports of Spain would had been productive for the war effort in the Atlantic.
With Spanish Morocco and Gibraltar captured, the British forces to the east of the world would had been isolated since the Suez canal, of which had been regarded by the British as their gateway to the east had been become for them, out of reach. Hitler at this point could either postpone Barbarossa and focus in the conquest of British colonies in Africa and the east and later gather enough resources to win himself in Russia.
However, it takes a lot of persuasion for Hitler to persuade Japan not to include America into the war by restraining them to conquering all of East Asia BUT the Philippines and prevent pearl harbor. The conquest of East Asia and seeing how the Japs are effectively encircling them would project a different image to America, mess with them and the Philippines will be gone.
While as for Hitler again, Barbarossa could had been finished it weren't for Hitler's intervention in sending the 6th army alone to attack Stalingrad and thinning his offensive power in the Southeast by sending a chunk of his forces to the Caucasus. Instead of focusing in Kiev, which had delayed Hitler's invasion to Moscow, he should had left pockets of unorganized resistance in Kiev and totally send Moscow forces into disarray, Hitler would had totally gained, if not total victory, but upper-hand in the east.
If the British empire refuses to capitulate, Hitler should had denied his conscience and used Tabun gas unto the V-2 or V-1 rockets and fired them to annihilate the entire population of London. He should also had spammed Britain with gas filled rockets to send mainland Britain into disarray and proceed with conquering Britain by a modified version of Sea lion and then hope for Churchill to capitulate, just kidding, int this scenario, the British government might had been casualties.
Japan should had been persuaded to also invade from the east in the Soviet union as an optional bonus for Hitler's final victory.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Viritica » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:12 am
Divair wrote:Viritica wrote:Yes, but if they had taken out Moscow and captured Stalin (who planned to stay) then the Soviet government would likely have collapsed. They would have been pushed back to the east and would have begun fighting amongst each other over who gets control over the rest of Russia. Besides, Hitler didn't want all of Russia. He planned to stop at the Urals which would have made a relatively nice defensive position.
And how was Japan's attack inevitable? A large part of the reason they attacked was because the US had put oil sanctions on them. If the Nazis captured the oil fields in Russia then they could have supplied the Japanese thereby preventing the Pearl Harbor attack.
Stalin could be replaced. The Soviet government didn't micro-manage like the Nazis, which is why you have brilliant leaders like in Leningrad and Stalingrad. And the Urals wouldn't have held the Soviets forever.
America was funding the Chinese and had an interest in maintaining influence in the Pacific. This goes against Japan's desire to conquer everything, oil or no oil. And it would take years for the Nazis to get oil all the way to the Japanese. If they even had enough to spare, that is. And you'll notice Japan was running out of oil long before Barbarossa even started, let alone before the oil fields could be captured.
by Zitru » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:14 am
by Great Kleomentia » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:15 am
Trotskylvania wrote:Great Kleomentia wrote:They didnt have the resources, but they did have the talent in terms of they had scientists capable to do so. Remember, most of Nazi scientists later fled to the US and continued their work under the administration and funding of the US government.
Those were, almost without exception, not the right kind of scientists.
Yes, they had brilliant aeronautical engineers and metallurgists, and they did some brilliant work making rockets later. But not only is making nuclear weapons entirely different, it's a whole lot harder. The German physics community had pretty much purged everyone who had even a twinkling of understanding of relativity and nuclear physics, and the whole field was generally denigrated as "Jewish physics" under Nazi ideology. Many had fled to the UK or the US by 1938.
by Senkaku » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:15 am
by Viritica » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:16 am
Nueo Soled wrote:Yes, if they dumped Hitler way before WW2 even started and choosed a much better military commander instead.
by Lolloh » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:17 am
by Trotskylvania » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:21 am
Viritica wrote:Divair wrote:Stalin could be replaced. The Soviet government didn't micro-manage like the Nazis, which is why you have brilliant leaders like in Leningrad and Stalingrad. And the Urals wouldn't have held the Soviets forever.
America was funding the Chinese and had an interest in maintaining influence in the Pacific. This goes against Japan's desire to conquer everything, oil or no oil. And it would take years for the Nazis to get oil all the way to the Japanese. If they even had enough to spare, that is. And you'll notice Japan was running out of oil long before Barbarossa even started, let alone before the oil fields could be captured.
Stalin was the government. He was everything during that time. He was effectively the supreme leader of the USSR. Without him and without Moscow the entire Soviet government would likely have collapsed. And imagine the power vacuum that would of taken place had he been captured or killed? And with Moscow captured Stalingrad and Leningrad would likely have followed suit.
I do think the Urals could of held the Soviets back. Mountains make excellent defenses. You could build endless bunkers and artillery pieces. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets were likely going to be extremely demoralized after having been steamrolled over in less than a year and the fact that a large part of people towards the east in the USSR were already pessimistic of the war.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Viritica » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:27 am
Trotskylvania wrote:Viritica wrote:Stalin was the government. He was everything during that time. He was effectively the supreme leader of the USSR. Without him and without Moscow the entire Soviet government would likely have collapsed. And imagine the power vacuum that would of taken place had he been captured or killed? And with Moscow captured Stalingrad and Leningrad would likely have followed suit.
I do think the Urals could of held the Soviets back. Mountains make excellent defenses. You could build endless bunkers and artillery pieces. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets were likely going to be extremely demoralized after having been steamrolled over in less than a year and the fact that a large part of people towards the east in the USSR were already pessimistic of the war.
Stalin had already ceded the initative to the rest of the government by December. His death would not have caused a power vacuum. The Soviet government would have carried on, and the Deputy Chairman of Sovnarkom would have taken the reins to ensure an orderly transition. All of the government ministries are safely out of Moscow, the army will keep fighting, and the Party treats all people as interchangeable parts.
The Germans will never make it to the Urals, the logistic system made it impossible. Moscow was entirely out of their reach, what makes you think that they could support their armies any further into the Soviet Union.
Leningrad didn't fall in spite of 900 days of siege, and Stalingrad didn't fall, even with the Germans dogpiling everything they had available on it. They are not going to fall if Moscow falls.
by Trotskylvania » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:27 am
Viritica wrote:Nueo Soled wrote:Yes, if they dumped Hitler way before WW2 even started and choosed a much better military commander instead.
Hitler was a master at uniting Germany and he already had brilliant generals leading his Armies (Rommel's tactics are still studied today). Had Hitler just let his generals do their thing they could of won.
Lolloh wrote:Are you kidding? It's a miracle Germany LOST. The main problem was Hitler. His commands of fighting to the last man, repudiating logical orders, and refusing to pioneer important technologies, essentially doomed the Nazis. Of course, the USSR invasion was part of it. However, had the Germans made us of the Me232, they probably would've at least held off the Allies to have a truce. Further, Hitler also halted the invasion of Russia for a month for some reason. If he had just pushed, he could've taken Moscow and crushed the Soviets.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Shanix » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:32 am
Senkaku wrote:Had Hitler not been so anti-Semitic (which would've secured him a number of good scientists to aid him in his efforts to get the bomb as well as lots of money, soldiers and material that he would've poured into the Holocaust), and had he not invaded the Soviet Union, and had he not focused on his expensive and ultimately futile Wunderwaffens, none of which proved to be all that effective, and if he'd sent more aid and intelligence to Japan, the Axis could've won. But it wouldn't have been pretty.
Lolloh wrote:Are you kidding? It's a miracle Germany LOST. The main problem was Hitler. His commands of fighting to the last man, repudiating logical orders, and refusing to pioneer important technologies, essentially doomed the Nazis. Of course, the USSR invasion was part of it. However, had the Germans made us of the Me232, they probably would've at least held off the Allies to have a truce. Further, Hitler also halted the invasion of Russia for a month for some reason. If he had just pushed, he could've taken Moscow and crushed the Soviets.
...we have underestimated the Russian colossus...[Soviet] divisions are not armed and equipped according to our standards, and their tactical leadership is often poor. But there they are, and as we smash a dozen of them the Russians simply put up another dozen.
by Trotskylvania » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:37 am
Viritica wrote:Trotskylvania wrote:Stalin had already ceded the initative to the rest of the government by December. His death would not have caused a power vacuum. The Soviet government would have carried on, and the Deputy Chairman of Sovnarkom would have taken the reins to ensure an orderly transition. All of the government ministries are safely out of Moscow, the army will keep fighting, and the Party treats all people as interchangeable parts.
The Germans will never make it to the Urals, the logistic system made it impossible. Moscow was entirely out of their reach, what makes you think that they could support their armies any further into the Soviet Union.
Leningrad didn't fall in spite of 900 days of siege, and Stalingrad didn't fall, even with the Germans dogpiling everything they had available on it. They are not going to fall if Moscow falls.
Moscow was entirely out of reach? Bah. Do you know just how close the Nazis came? If I remember correctly, some Nazi scouts actually reported coming within visual range of Moscow. The Germans only wanted Leningrad because of the number of troops it held. The Germans could simply have surrounded it and starved the Soviets into submission. The reason the Germans lost the Battle of Stalingrad was because Soviet reinforcements arrived. Moscow was the main telegraph and railway center of the USSR. No Moscow means no reinforcements. Stalingrad falls too.
The Urals were a logistical nightmare but the Germans could have pulled it off.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Lunas Legion » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:41 am
Shanix wrote:Senkaku wrote:Had Hitler not been so anti-Semitic (which would've secured him a number of good scientists to aid him in his efforts to get the bomb as well as lots of money, soldiers and material that he would've poured into the Holocaust), and had he not invaded the Soviet Union, and had he not focused on his expensive and ultimately futile Wunderwaffens, none of which proved to be all that effective, and if he'd sent more aid and intelligence to Japan, the Axis could've won. But it wouldn't have been pretty.
Just to expand on this, Germany had 7 competing Atomic Bomb projects by wars end.Lolloh wrote:Are you kidding? It's a miracle Germany LOST. The main problem was Hitler. His commands of fighting to the last man, repudiating logical orders, and refusing to pioneer important technologies, essentially doomed the Nazis. Of course, the USSR invasion was part of it. However, had the Germans made us of the Me232, they probably would've at least held off the Allies to have a truce. Further, Hitler also halted the invasion of Russia for a month for some reason. If he had just pushed, he could've taken Moscow and crushed the Soviets.
As much a miracle as a British Monarch being Anglican.
Hitler was a big problem, but it's another thing entirely to fight the biggest (land-wise) country in the world when ~80% was inhospitable at the time, the proudest of nations, the quickest to rouse beast of a nation, and pretty much the rest of the civilized world. Hitler made his bed, he just decided to flail around on it towards the end when bedtime came.
The Me262, could not have saved Germany in any way, shape, or form. It's one thing to have the best tech. But as we saw in that war, when you've got 10,000 shit-tier planes and troops swarming over 10 of their technological powerful enemies, its not the tech that's winning. A quote from Hitler's diary serves to emphasize best:...we have underestimated the Russian colossus...[Soviet] divisions are not armed and equipped according to our standards, and their tactical leadership is often poor. But there they are, and as we smash a dozen of them the Russians simply put up another dozen.
I now must ask, of what month of halting do you speak? More often that not (read: always), when the Wehrmacht stopped, it stopped because Generals Winter and Rain appeared. The inability to properly prepare for the invasion cost the Nazis Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, not "halting the invasion for a month for some reason." Had he managed to continue past weather, I hardly imagine that Stalin, Zhukov, or any Soviet would allow the Naizs to take Moscow. No, that would be near impossible. Like with Napoleon, Moscow would burn before the Nazis took it.
TL;DR Anyone who states that the Nazis could have won, have not studied WWII, or enough of it.
by Trotskylvania » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:47 am
Lunas Legion wrote:Shanix wrote:Just to expand on this, Germany had 7 competing Atomic Bomb projects by wars end.
As much a miracle as a British Monarch being Anglican.
Hitler was a big problem, but it's another thing entirely to fight the biggest (land-wise) country in the world when ~80% was inhospitable at the time, the proudest of nations, the quickest to rouse beast of a nation, and pretty much the rest of the civilized world. Hitler made his bed, he just decided to flail around on it towards the end when bedtime came.
The Me262, could not have saved Germany in any way, shape, or form. It's one thing to have the best tech. But as we saw in that war, when you've got 10,000 shit-tier planes and troops swarming over 10 of their technological powerful enemies, its not the tech that's winning. A quote from Hitler's diary serves to emphasize best:
I now must ask, of what month of halting do you speak? More often that not (read: always), when the Wehrmacht stopped, it stopped because Generals Winter and Rain appeared. The inability to properly prepare for the invasion cost the Nazis Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, not "halting the invasion for a month for some reason." Had he managed to continue past weather, I hardly imagine that Stalin, Zhukov, or any Soviet would allow the Naizs to take Moscow. No, that would be near impossible. Like with Napoleon, Moscow would burn before the Nazis took it.
TL;DR Anyone who states that the Nazis could have won, have not studied WWII, or enough of it.
Germany could have won. If Hitler made the Lorentz decision in favour of one side (north or south) rather than splitting between them, and chose to go south, he would easily have beaten the Russians. The forces used to siege Leningrad and attempt to siege Moscow would have been better used in the steppes of the south, and once the Causcaus had fallen, Hitler has his oil supply secured, and taken it from the Soviets. The US can only ship so much oil into the USSR, and soon enough it would have run out and had to surrender based off simple lack of resources. Also, if Hitler exploited the sense of nationalism that had been suppressed by the Soviets in the Baltic states/Ukraine/Cossacks, the partisan issue would be reduced in the western areas of Russia, and he would have had manpower reserves to draw on as well.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Shanix » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:49 am
Lunas Legion wrote:Shanix wrote:[cut out to save everyone space]
Germany could have won. If Hitler made the Lorentz decision in favour of one side (north or south) rather than splitting between them, and chose to go south, he would easily have beaten the Russians. The forces used to siege Leningrad and attempt to siege Moscow would have been better used in the steppes of the south, and once the Causcaus had fallen, Hitler has his oil supply secured, and taken it from the Soviets. The US can only ship so much oil into the USSR, and soon enough it would have run out and had to surrender based off simple lack of resources. Also, if Hitler exploited the sense of nationalism that had been suppressed by the Soviets in the Baltic states/Ukraine/Cossacks, the partisan issue would be reduced in the western areas of Russia, and he would have had manpower reserves to draw on as well.
by Trotskylvania » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:54 am
Shanix wrote:Lunas Legion wrote:Germany could have won. If Hitler made the Lorentz decision in favour of one side (north or south) rather than splitting between them, and chose to go south, he would easily have beaten the Russians. The forces used to siege Leningrad and attempt to siege Moscow would have been better used in the steppes of the south, and once the Causcaus had fallen, Hitler has his oil supply secured, and taken it from the Soviets. The US can only ship so much oil into the USSR, and soon enough it would have run out and had to surrender based off simple lack of resources. Also, if Hitler exploited the sense of nationalism that had been suppressed by the Soviets in the Baltic states/Ukraine/Cossacks, the partisan issue would be reduced in the western areas of Russia, and he would have had manpower reserves to draw on as well.
No. The biggest problem was, as always, over extended supply lines. Even if they hit the Oil Fields, they would have had to defend them against the Soviet War Machine across its entire expanse to make it worth while, otherwise the Soviets could encircle the Germans (See: End of Stalingrad) and pulled a Leningrad.
Speaking of Leningrad and her friends, why would Hitler want them? Simple. Morale. You're a soviet citizen and you find out that Lenin's City fell and Moscow came afterwards, well GGNORE everyone. GGNORE indeed. So he couldn't not go for them, it could bring an end to the war quicker.
Exploiting the Baltics seems like it could have worked, but you're talking about a force increase, in the North, to fight in the North. Or, more accurately, fight with shittier equipment and training and expect to keep up with the Wehrmacht, then get given shit detail because they aren't German. No way would they allow Baltic Soldiers into proper German Ranks. They wouldn't let the Finns in.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Shanix » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:55 am
Trotskylvania wrote:Shanix wrote:No. The biggest problem was, as always, over extended supply lines. Even if they hit the Oil Fields, they would have had to defend them against the Soviet War Machine across its entire expanse to make it worth while, otherwise the Soviets could encircle the Germans (See: End of Stalingrad) and pulled a Leningrad.
Speaking of Leningrad and her friends, why would Hitler want them? Simple. Morale. You're a soviet citizen and you find out that Lenin's City fell and Moscow came afterwards, well GGNORE everyone. GGNORE indeed. So he couldn't not go for them, it could bring an end to the war quicker.
Exploiting the Baltics seems like it could have worked, but you're talking about a force increase, in the North, to fight in the North. Or, more accurately, fight with shittier equipment and training and expect to keep up with the Wehrmacht, then get given shit detail because they aren't German. No way would they allow Baltic Soldiers into proper German Ranks. They wouldn't let the Finns in.
Actually, changing courses away from a direct assault on Leningrad is the only operational mistake worth noting. Because the only way they can fix their supply conundrum anywhere is to take the harbor, port, and rail facilities of Leningrad. The Soviets will demolish them, sure, but the only way they can get supplies to the front in sufficient quantities is through Leningrad harbor. Repairing and using the Leningrad ports is the only thing short of an act of God that can help alleviate the supply problem, and that would only be for Army Group North.
by Lunas Legion » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:59 am
Trotskylvania wrote:Lunas Legion wrote:
Germany could have won. If Hitler made the Lorentz decision in favour of one side (north or south) rather than splitting between them, and chose to go south, he would easily have beaten the Russians. The forces used to siege Leningrad and attempt to siege Moscow would have been better used in the steppes of the south, and once the Causcaus had fallen, Hitler has his oil supply secured, and taken it from the Soviets. The US can only ship so much oil into the USSR, and soon enough it would have run out and had to surrender based off simple lack of resources. Also, if Hitler exploited the sense of nationalism that had been suppressed by the Soviets in the Baltic states/Ukraine/Cossacks, the partisan issue would be reduced in the western areas of Russia, and he would have had manpower reserves to draw on as well.
The Germans couldn't support the armies they did have in Ukraine. What on Earth makes you think putting more troops in their to divide the resource pie would be anything but disastrous. What makes you think that the Soviets won't use the weakness of Army Group North to go crashing into East Prussia? What makes you think that they can prevent the Kiev-Smolensk salient from flanking their attacks without Army Group North to take the area and tie down Soviet forces?
What makes you think that Nazis, who were ideologically committed to a policy of murder by starvation of the entire Slavic race, could exploit Ukrainian nationalism better than the Soviets? These are fundamental, core parts of the Nazi belief system, and to prevent them you basically can't have Nazis involved anymore, and he butterfly effect alone means there wouldn't be war in the first place.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: A m e n r i a, Dantek, Elejamie, Emotional Support Crocodile, Immoren, Kemenshia, Lumaterra, Oceasia, Orderstaat V, Orderstaat VI, Orderstaat VII, Orderstaat VIII, Tarsonis, Vanuzgard
Advertisement