I think Japan still would have invaded the Soviet Union though, if the Second Sino-Japanese War continued (the oil embargo only really happened once they invaded Indochina).
Other than that I agree with you. That would be curious alternate reality.
How could Germany have won the war?
-
As I said, he could only won the war if he quit being himself and let his generals do the job and the thinking, but then he would not be Hitler
-
naw, his generals where to obsessed with the tactics of war, rather than the economics of war. This is why they wanted to go for moscow, rather than turn south and get the ukrainian ore, block the ukrainian factories and encircle 500k (i don’t remember the number) men around kiev.
the economics dictated going after the resources and building strategic bombers.
-
As far as not attacking Russia, it was just an idea.� Maybe they could have waited another year or hit the Balkans earlier.� Just saying their timing wasn’t that great if the goal was Moscow before winter.
But it was a bad idea to attack Russia. Thay had more than twice the population, it was the largest country in the world with lots of oil and resources, it have severe winter half the year, and at that time only dirtroads. The classic Russian defense stategi is the scorched earth tactic, and on top of that Stalin had used 60 % of the Gross domestic production for military outlays for 10 years, and had reached 4 times the tank production that Germany had.
Yes, they could have waited another year, but it was not in Hitlers nature to be prudent. He even startet the whole war many years before his military forces were ready, why should he wait to invade Russia ? He could have ignored the Balkans, since Greece would never let UK bomb the Ploesti oil field, and the alliance with Italy was not valid as long as Italy was the aggressor. And he could have startet Barbarossa in mai, but since Hitler figured it would take 3 weeks only to crush Russia, he was in no hurry.
I think Germany’s best bet to conquer Russia, would be to project all their available forces and resources to the campaign. They had half a million men based in Norway and Finland for no good use, and this men could be added to Barbarossa. The Africa Corps with Rommel could be added too, since Germany had no economic interests in Libya, and the 600 000 men from the Balkan Army. Since France surrendered they did not need a million men there just to chase jews. This 2 million extra men could have made a difference in Russia.
Since the German HQ knew the Russians would use the scorched earth tactics, the German army should be better supplyed by trucks. But Hitler wanted them to live by the land, wich means taking food from the local civillians, because he wanted the natives to starve to death so german settlers could later colonize Russia. A nice and evil idea, but the problem was that Stalin had scorched the eart, so there was no food, and since the German Army did not find any food in Russia, and Hitler refused to feed them by supply, then Hitlers Army were starving as a result. One of the rational to not use rail to send supply to Russia, was that Hitler needed all railways to send jews to Holocaust. This was more important then to supply the Army in the east. So basically the German Army in Russia was short of supply, short of food, short of winter clothes, short of gas, short of trucks etc etc and that was bad since the attack turned out to become a war of attrition, and not a 3 week long trip of triumph.
What Hitler could have done was let his generals do the job, but then he would not be Hitler.
Winter clothes and antifreeze would have made a difference.
Another point would be the constant change of priorities. I mean, just look at fall blau. Hitler first wanted to take the caucasus, and then he became obsessed with stalingrad.
Same with Leningrad. Could be taken easily, but he wanted the infantry to catch up. Why do you want to besiege a city when it could be taken and the forces there freed up for use elsewhere?
-
From some of my recent readings the Germans believed that in the Soviet’s were not capable of feeding the 4 million people in Leningrad after the beating the Red Army was taken in early 1941. A huge mistake on the Germans part.
-
@ABWorsham:
From some of my recent readings the Germans believed that in the Soviet’s were not capable of feeding the 4 million people in Leningrad after the beating the Red Army was taken in early 1941. A huge mistake on the Germans part.
In one sense, the Germans were correct: an awful lot of people in Leningrad died of starvation (and cold, due to lack of fuel) during the siege, a situation made worse by the fact that the Russians failed to evacuate the elderly and the very young while they still had the chance, before the city was cut off. But the Germans did make a serious mistake in not pushing their occupation line completely around the southern end of Lake Ladoga and up its eastern bank to join up with the Finns, who had captured the northern half of Karelia Ladoga. As a result, the Russians retained access to the eastern shore of Lake Ladoga, and were able to get supplies across the lake to Leningrad by truck and railroad in winter (when the surface was frozen) and by ship in summer. Leningrad got only a fraction of what it needed, but this trickle of supplies did nonethless help the city to hold out.
-
@CWO:
@ABWorsham:
From some of my recent readings the Germans believed that in the Soviet’s were not capable of feeding the 4 million people in Leningrad after the beating the Red Army was taken in early 1941. A huge mistake on the Germans part.
In one sense, the Germans were correct: an awful lot of people in Leningrad died of starvation (and cold, due to lack of fuel) during the siege, a situation made worse by the fact that the Russians failed to evacuate the elderly and the very young while they still had the chance, before the city was cut off.�  But the Germans did make a serious mistake in not pushing their occupation line completely around the southern end of Lake Ladoga and up its eastern bank to join up with the Finns, who had captured the northern half of Karelia Ladoga.�  As a result, the Russians retained access to the eastern shore of Lake Ladoga, and were able to get supplies across the lake to Leningrad by truck and railroad in winter (when the surface was frozen) and by ship in summer.�  Leningrad got only a fraction of what it needed, but this trickle of supplies did nonethless help the city to hold out.
I’ve read reports that over the course of the siege, Children were going missing during the night. Speculation and recent evidence suggests some of them were eaten.
Reports of cannibalism appeared in the winter of 1941–1942, after all birds, rats, and pets had been eaten by survivors.[52] Hungry gangs attacked and ate people.[53] Leningrad police even formed a special unit to combat cannibalism. This unit resulted in 260 Leningraders being found guilty of and put in prison for the crime of cannibalism
-
@CWO:
@ABWorsham:
From some of my recent readings the Germans believed that in the Soviet’s were not capable of feeding the 4 million people in Leningrad after the beating the Red Army was taken in early 1941. A huge mistake on the Germans part.
In one sense, the Germans were correct: an awful lot of people in Leningrad died of starvation (and cold, due to lack of fuel) during the siege, a situation made worse by the fact that the Russians failed to evacuate the elderly and the very young while they still had the chance, before the city was cut off.� � But the Germans did make a serious mistake in not pushing their occupation line completely around the southern end of Lake Ladoga and up its eastern bank to join up with the Finns, who had captured the northern half of Karelia Ladoga.� � As a result, the Russians retained access to the eastern shore of Lake Ladoga, and were able to get supplies across the lake to Leningrad by truck and railroad in winter (when the surface was frozen) and by ship in summer.� � Leningrad got only a fraction of what it needed, but this trickle of supplies did nonethless help the city to hold out.
I’ve read reports that over the course of the siege, Children were going missing during the night. Speculation and recent evidence suggests some of them were eaten.
Reports of cannibalism appeared in the winter of 1941–1942, after all birds, rats, and pets had been eaten by survivors.[52] Hungry gangs attacked and ate people.[53] Leningrad police even formed a special unit to combat cannibalism. This unit resulted in 260 Leningraders being found guilty of and put in prison for the crime of cannibalism
Never heard about this before. Horrible.
-
I think it is more of a societal thing. One of the reasons I am proud to be an American is that we TOOK our freedom from England when England was (close to) at its strongest. You look around the world and you see these third world countries bitching and moaning about “its not our fault, we were a colony”! Boo frigg’n hoo. So were we, and instead of being given our freedom (which India was, if you believe Ghandi did it I have a bridge to sell you), we took it. Taking freedom is much different than having it given to you. Look around the world at the old colonies, most of them are run now dictators and are poor. Very few took their freedom, most got it because we pressured England to drop its colonies after the war (which they had to do, or no Marshall plan $).
We have a Constitution that allows us to have weapons. That was not put in there so people could hunt or defend themselves against muggers. It was put in there so that the government does not have a monopoly on force.
You make it sound like the americans took it without help, from a british empire who had nothing else to do. The fact is that the american revolution would probably not have succeded if this was the case. The british war in india got most of the british resouces, and the french (the worlds strongest military power on land at the time), combined with the spansih and the dutch helped a great deal. In fact, there are very few wars of freedom (after 1500) that have won without help from an outside power helping, and usually they need to declare war to do enough. The nations you are belitteling is exactly the nations that would never get aid for their revolutionary and rebellious wars, and exactly the nations that got their freedom with the least help from an outside power. The indians did it by making sure that it would be too costly for the british to stay there.
When it comes to the second amendment, don’t be naive, the government does have monopoly on force, there is no way a rebellion would work, taliban militias is better armed than the american civilian population.
The one way to ensure (IMO) that the government cannot use their army against the civilan population is to have a conscripted army, if every person have served, then every member of the army thinks of himself as a member of the population and massive nonviolent protests will turn the army against the government. It is less violent, and has a greater chance of success. The moment the army is a professional army, thinking of themselves as outside the population, working for a salery, then you are in trouble as a democracy.
EDIT: forgive my harsh tone, it is not meant that way
That’s nuts. I do not own a gun, but if they were to ever try and take them away I would get one and would be willing to die shooting whoever came to my door trying to take it away. The second amendment does not give me the right to do that, it makes it an OBLIGATION. Crunch the numbers. If 1 percent of US citizens (and it is much higher than that) own a gun that makes 3 million gun owners. Granted the military is more organized, but if you think they can take out 3 million gun owners easily you are crazy. Not to mention, the people who would be in charge of taking those guns away are more than likely gun owners themselves. If you want to argue whether we could fight our military ok, but one thing that is not open to argument is the intent the founders had by giving us the second. I do not have the right to own a gun to shoot a deer or defend against a mugger.
I love when people try to compare Vietanm to our Revolution. You remember the mass slayings after we won? The re-education camps? The brutal crack down by the government? Not to mention the great standard of living that Vietnam enjoys to this day! The fight was to minimize government as much as possible. American exceptionalism is just that - EXCEPTIONAL! You will be hard pressed to find examples in history where the winners of the war give power to the people instead of seizing it themselves. George Washington was not King George. He gave up power peacefully.
As far as our ability to beat the British, it also amuses me that Vietnam was unwinnable… but the only reason we won our independence is because the British just weren’t all that much into it. That being said, the french were not going to help us until they saw that we had a good chance of winning. I won’t dispute the French helped, but we did most of the fighting. The fact we won a diplomatic victory getting the French to aid us (and the only reason they helped us was to stick it to the British, there was no altruistic reason behind it). With that logic I guess England didn’t win the battle of Britian - We did!. W/o our aid even Churchill acknowledged England would have fallen. But I defy you to find someone who lived through the blitz and tell them that.
The fact of the matter is that when a war takes place people are going to take sides, and the decision of what side a country should take should always be in was in that countries own best interest. The balance of power in the world shifted quite a bit after we won our independence (in France’s favor).
Plain and simple, diplomacy is a part of war just as much as guns and butter.
-
You will be hard pressed to find examples in history where the winners of the war give power to the people instead of seizing it themselves. George Washington was not King George. He gave up power peacefully.
I totally understand your point, but you’re making the mistake of looking at the Founding Fathers with rose-colored glasses. They also believed that only certain classes of people should be in charge as the common man was too ignorant to be trusted with a full voice in government. The US Constitution was a huge step forward but most of the FFs would have been horrified at the idea of implementing a more fuller democracy such as we have now.
-
@Eggman:
You will be hard pressed to find examples in history where the winners of the war give power to the people instead of seizing it themselves. George Washington was not King George. He gave up power peacefully.
I totally understand your point, but you’re making the mistake of looking at the Founding Fathers with rose-colored glasses. They also believed that only certain classes of people should be in charge as the common man was too ignorant to be trusted with a full voice in government. The US Constitution was a huge step forward but most of the FFs would have been horrified at the idea of implementing a more fuller democracy such as we have now.
Well, judging by the general political IQ of the average American, the founding fathers were probably right.
-
Spies
The house on 92nd str
A nuclear Germany in late 40 & 41 -
@Eggman:
You will be hard pressed to find examples in history where the winners of the war give power to the people instead of seizing it themselves. George Washington was not King George. He gave up power peacefully.
I totally understand your point, but you’re making the mistake of looking at the Founding Fathers with rose-colored glasses. They also believed that only certain classes of people should be in charge as the common man was too ignorant to be trusted with a full voice in government. The US Constitution was a huge step forward but most of the FFs would have been horrified at the idea of implementing a more fuller democracy such as we have now.
Well, judging by the general political IQ of the average American, the founding fathers were probably right.
Since politics are forbidden I will refrain from what I really think and talk about the broad instead of the specifics. The one thing that has not changed, nor will ever change despite societies or tech changes is that the less the government has to with our individual lives the better - or at least that is what our founders thought was the core belief of what the founders wanted. The Constitution is a set of NEGATIVE rights imposed on the government to keep it in check and to not become a tyranny. At BEST government can be like a harry chrisna (no clue how they spell it), well meaning, thinks it knows everything, truly wants to help you, but is annoying and any help you get you really shouldn’t want. At worst government is like any tyranny going make 1000s of years.
I do not believe the rose colored glasses thing. Again, this is an attempt to demean the fathers by not making them super human King Solomns. Given the time they were in they were well ahead of themselves. They broadened the electorate to unheard of levels.
and honestly, I do agree with this:
Well, judging by the general political IQ of the average American, the founding fathers were probably right.
The idea that you are doing something wrong, or you are a bad person because you don’t vote is absurd. Some people are just too stupid to vote and their voice should not be heard. A general rule of thumb is if you can’t name the three branches of government, but you can name all of the Kardashians, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Reminds me of something I saw on the “Man Show”. They went around getting women to sign a petition to end “Women’s sufferage”. They got over 100 sigs before someone said “Hey, doesn’t that give me the right to vote?”
Anyone who signed that should not be allowed to vote (by their own admission).
-
It would not be an easy walk in into Leningrad…
-
the topic went in a weird direction, to bring it back I would like to see someone argue the point I made with how Germany could have won the war.
If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them? I think Dunkirk would not have succeeded in 40 and England would have no army, and in 41 Russia would have fallen before winter. Even if it didn’t fall I am sure Moscow would have fallen, and the following spring offensive would have ended the war in the East.
The difference between this and other ‘miracle weapons’ is that an assault weapon is practical. Jets and really big tanks take up too many resources even if they had been produced earlier or in greater numbers. Ammunition would have been a factor, but that would have been it.
Imagine it, an army equipped with assault rifles opposed by armies who are equipped with what is basicaly now a hunting rifle.
Fortunately for the world Hitler didn’t like the concept until it was too late.
-
It is amazing that in 1941 the Germans attempted to conquer Russia with horse drawn supplies and a bolt action rifle as the primary infantry weapon. More amazing they came so close to winning.
-
If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them?Â
Imagine it, an army equipped with assault rifles opposed by armies who are equipped with what is basicaly now a hunting rifle.
You may got a valid point. In the Battle of Koniggratz in 1866 the Prussians used modern Dreyes-rifles, and won the battle most because of this. The Austrians used the old rifles. The Austrians lost 45 000 men while the Prussians lost only 9 000 men. Only 4 years later the Prussians crushed France too in the 1870/71 war. Lucky too us Hitler was obsessed with heavy tanks and jet aircrafts
-
the topic went in a weird direction, to bring it back I would like to see someone argue the point I made with how Germany could have won the war.
If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them? I think Dunkirk would not have succeeded in 40 and England would have no army, and in 41 Russia would have fallen before winter. Even if it didn’t fall I am sure Moscow would have fallen, and the following spring offensive would have ended the war in the East.
The difference between this and other ‘miracle weapons’ is that an assault weapon is practical. Jets and really big tanks take up too many resources even if they had been produced earlier or in greater numbers. Ammunition would have been a factor, but that would have been it.
Imagine it, an army equipped with assault rifles opposed by armies who are equipped with what is basicaly now a hunting rifle.
Fortunately for the world Hitler didn’t like the concept until it was too late.Â
…and how would you have fought with a
39 Sturmgewehr in urban terrain and also modified the combat tactics with in? Can you please explain how you see it? Could have been a FG42 or a MG42 in greater nbrs a better benefit in39 or `40 to the combat style of the Wehrmacht? -
If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them? I think Dunkirk would not have succeeded in 40 and England would have no armyÂ
The Dunkirk evacuation succeeded because Hitler’s “stop order” halted the advance of the German forces for several days at a crucial moment of their offensive in the west, instead of allowing them to continue their pursuit of the retreating Allied forces. I don’t think it would have made much difference if German infantrymen had had a different personal firearm at that time because the German army didn’t attack the British during those critical days; it simply consolidated its position and allowed the Luftwaffe to try to destroy the Allied position at Dunkirk on its own.
-
@CWO:
If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them?� I think Dunkirk would not have succeeded in 40 and England would have no army�
The Dunkirk evacuation succeeded because Hitler’s “stop order” halted the advance of the German forces for several days at a crucial moment of their offensive in the west, instead of allowing them to continue their pursuit of the retreating Allied forces. I don’t think it would have made much difference if German infantrymen had had a different personal firearm at that time because the German army didn’t attack the British during those critical days; it simply consolidated its position and allowed the Luftwaffe to try to destroy the Allied position at Dunkirk on its own.
They didn’t attack because they did not have tank support (they had been run into the ground blitzing through France and needed repair and the troops rest). While it is true that the German infantry had not completely caught up to the tanks, the largest reason for the pause was lack of armor. I contend that they would not have needed armor support if the standard German infantryman was equipped with an assault rifle. The British armor was out of fuel and abandon. This would have been a straight up infantry fight with the Germans having air dominance and 88s shelling them.
While it may have taken some getting used to, the tactics of having assault rifles would have evolved rather quickly. That is proven by how quickly they did evolve in 44 when the sturmgewher did go into circulation. The question wasn’t “how do we use this thing”, it was “how can we get more?”
-
I think it is more of a societal thing. One of the reasons I am proud to be an American is that we TOOK our freedom from England when England was (close to) at its strongest. You look around the world and you see these third world countries bitching and moaning about “its not our fault, we were a colony”! Boo frigg’n hoo. So were we, and instead of being given our freedom (which India was, if you believe Ghandi did it I have a bridge to sell you), we took it. Taking freedom is much different than having it given to you. Look around the world at the old colonies, most of them are run now dictators and are poor. Very few took their freedom, most got it because we pressured England to drop its colonies after the war (which they had to do, or no Marshall plan $).
We have a Constitution that allows us to have weapons. That was not put in there so people could hunt or defend themselves against muggers. It was put in there so that the government does not have a monopoly on force.
You make it sound like the americans took it without help, from a british empire who had nothing else to do. The fact is that the american revolution would probably not have succeded if this was the case. The british war in india got most of the british resouces, and the french (the worlds strongest military power on land at the time), combined with the spansih and the dutch helped a great deal. In fact, there are very few wars of freedom (after 1500) that have won without help from an outside power helping, and usually they need to declare war to do enough. The nations you are belitteling is exactly the nations that would never get aid for their revolutionary and rebellious wars, and exactly the nations that got their freedom with the least help from an outside power. The indians did it by making sure that it would be too costly for the british to stay there.
When it comes to the second amendment, don’t be naive, the government does have monopoly on force, there is no way a rebellion would work, taliban militias is better armed than the american civilian population.
The one way to ensure (IMO) that the government cannot use their army against the civilan population is to have a conscripted army, if every person have served, then every member of the army thinks of himself as a member of the population and massive nonviolent protests will turn the army against the government. It is less violent, and has a greater chance of success. The moment the army is a professional army, thinking of themselves as outside the population, working for a salery, then you are in trouble as a democracy.
EDIT: forgive my harsh tone, it is not meant that way
That’s nuts. I do not own a gun, but if they were to ever try and take them away I would get one and would be willing to die shooting whoever came to my door trying to take it away. The second amendment does not give me the right to do that, it makes it an OBLIGATION. Crunch the numbers. If 1 percent of US citizens (and it is much higher than that) own a gun that makes 3 million gun owners. Granted the military is more organized, but if you think they can take out 3 million gun owners easily you are crazy. Not to mention, the people who would be in charge of taking those guns away are more than likely gun owners themselves. If you want to argue whether we could fight our military ok, but one thing that is not open to argument is the intent the founders had by giving us the second. I do not have the right to own a gun to shoot a deer or defend against a mugger.
I love when people try to compare Vietanm to our Revolution. You remember the mass slayings after we won? The re-education camps? The brutal crack down by the government? Not to mention the great standard of living that Vietnam enjoys to this day! The fight was to minimize government as much as possible. American exceptionalism is just that - EXCEPTIONAL! You will be hard pressed to find examples in history where the winners of the war give power to the people instead of seizing it themselves. George Washington was not King George. He gave up power peacefully.
As far as our ability to beat the British, it also amuses me that Vietnam was unwinnable… but the only reason we won our independence is because the British just weren’t all that much into it. That being said, the french were not going to help us until they saw that we had a good chance of winning. I won’t dispute the French helped, but we did most of the fighting. The fact we won a diplomatic victory getting the French to aid us (and the only reason they helped us was to stick it to the British, there was no altruistic reason behind it). With that logic I guess England didn’t win the battle of Britian - We did!. W/o our aid even Churchill acknowledged England would have fallen. But I defy you to find someone who lived through the blitz and tell them that.
The fact of the matter is that when a war takes place people are going to take sides, and the decision of what side a country should take should always be in was in that countries own best interest. The balance of power in the world shifted quite a bit after we won our independence (in France’s favor).
Plain and simple, diplomacy is a part of war just as much as guns and butter.
Well, trying to keep this civil, but I want to make some counterpoints.
I assume about 200 million americans would be able to arm themselves, however it would make little difference if a revolution was needed. If the right every man had was for fighting the government, then every man should be allowed MUCH heavier weapons than they currently have. you need heavy artillery, fighters, bombs, tanks, machine guns etc. Just look at how good various millitias are doing around the world without these heavy weapons.
There is too many details in the american revolution to argue if the really gave power to the people or if this where victories that where won later, every white man could not even vote until the late 1800s. But this is besides the point.
When you compare Vietnam with american revolution, they are supprisingly similar in some ways, Vietkong could never have won without help from northvietnam, china and ussr, those weapons and supplies where vital.
The differences between the American revolution are also important. Perhaps the main reason Vietnam was “unwinnable” was actually america itself. Vietnam was lost because of American politics, USA decided to withdraw. If USA had been willing to do mass exterminations or been of the same ethnicity as the Vietnamese, the outcome might have been quite different.
I also sense you are deliberately trying to misinterpret me, I did in no way say that the french gave americans their freedom, to say that would be just as ridiculously stupid as saying USA took it 100% on its own, without any outside help.
The point I was making is that the only revolutions and major reforms that have succeeded without any major outside help has been the nonviolent ones. This is because The oppressor usually HAS the monopoly on force, and if force is used against them they will get away with responding with MUCH more force.
Suggested Topics
