The Most Devastating Event to Nazi Germany

Mussolini didn’t mess hitler up that much

So tieing down very usefull infantry and panzer divisions wasn’t that big of a deal? Hitler should have stopped all communication with Mussolini after Italy’s big “victory” in Ethopia.

It still amazes me how a Italian force of over 500,000 men could not manage to capture the British held Africa against a force a fraction of their own.

@Zhukov_2003:

It still amazes me how a Italian force of over 500,000 men could not manage to capture the British held Africa against a force a fraction of their own.

The Italian army was not as highly mechanized as the British, probably also not as well trained.

Even if the Germans hadn’t declared war on Germany the US would’ve once Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. Remember, that the US and Germany were involved in an unofficial war on the high seas throughout much of 1941.

North Africa just wasn’t a decisive theater in the war, and I’m puzzled as to why so many people think it was. The deciding factor in WWII was the military might the two superpowers Russia and the US were able to flex against the Axis powers. This being said without US involvement Germany could have been strong enough to force the Soviets to ultimately accept a separate peace despite Russian victory, and this could easily have representated a restoration of the 1914 borders, and the undoing of what the treaty of versailles achieved.

Mussolini boasted his forces would destroy the British fleet and capture Africa with his 8 million bayonets. Actually Mussolini relied on HItler for resources (in particualr coal) and had set HItler huge quantities of materials which he required before he would be able to join in the war (hence Mussolini not joining in till he thought that the war was as good as won). This isnt particularly insulting to the Italians, they were a country which was not ready for war but which had been forced in by their leader.

i’ve gotta go with the Battle of Britain here. Hitler had his sights right to start with but then changed them at a critical moment. the Luftwaffe had crippled the RAF near to the point of defeat, but then Hitler ordered the transitioning of his attacks to civilian targets far from the RAF airfields. Thus giveing the RAF much needed time to recuperate and retake the skies. by doing this, Hitler allowed massive Air losses to the British and gave them ample time to construct defenses against the impending Sealion.

And yet I would argue SeaLion would never have succeeded anyway. If you compare D-Day to SeaLion you can see the level of commitment and support needed for such a large amphib operation to succeed. Of course Germany did not have this.

And yet I would argue SeaLion would never have succeeded anyway. If you compare D-Day to SeaLion you can see the level of commitment and support needed for such a large amphib operation to succeed. Of course Germany did not have this.

Yes, I would totally agree with you here. Whether you can then infer that the Germans were never serious about Sealion as a result is another matter but I would agree that the level of ‘amateurism’ compared to Allied preparations for D-Day indicate a collossal defeat waiting on the other side of the Channel.
As for North Africa being a ‘sideshow’ Agent Smith……I’m not so sure. In Axis and Allies yes it can be ignored because it is pretty much irrelevant. But in the war…as someone said most of the Italian army was committed to Africa and its large Navy was of course Med based thus seriously challenging Britains’ links with India. Whatever your opinion as to italian quality their destruction helped pull Italy out of the war thus obliging German forces to defend against another front. (Italian engineers were also well ahead of others in jet-engine research. Another good reason to knock Italy out of the war. Which of course was begun through africa.)
It also allowed Torch to take place (thus giving a good dress rehearsal for D-Day and showing how well the Allies could co-operate in a combined arms op.) It also checked German ambitions in Iraq and Syria which thus checking an attempt to widen the war.
It was also, along with strategic bombing, the only place the British could challenge the axis on the ground until the war became global with Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor.
North Africa irrelevant? Come off it!

Of course you’d say that you’re English. The fact is that NAfrica represents the only theater of the war in which the Brits had any unilateral success so of course they feel it is the most important, but clearly it wasn’t. You forget that it was in Russia where Germany based the majority of its armed forces. Italy-10 divisions, France 20-30 depending on the time, Russia-200+. Needless to say that at the height of the war in 1943-44 the Germans had over 75% of their forces committed against Russia. Had the Brits faced the Germans one on one they would have had no chance. If the Americans and Brits had faced the bulk of the German army in France assuming they hadn’t gone to war with Russia it would’ve taken a long time to bring down the third reich, and a situation like that in WWI may have developed. So I stand by what I said before, had the Germans not gone to war with the Americans or Russians then at some point they could’ve forced peace on the remaining powers. For example, if Barbarossa never happens then the sub campaign in the Atlantic may have succeeded in forcing the capitulation of the English without invasion of Britain being needed, and once the Uk backs out of the war there would’ve been no reason for the Germans to go to war with the US.

Hitler could have at least doubled the size of his army if he had not been so strong on his racism, not just the Jews but also Russian POW’s (some of whom did fight) and Slavs and other occupied countries.

If HItler had carried out Sealion it would have been instead of Russia (or at least stalling it for a few years).

Sea Lion wouldn’t have worked either way. Britian has a vast supply of men to draw upon from Canada what they really lacked in the first few years was equipment such as guns, ammo, tanks etc. However, years down the road this would have been lessened.

As for using POWs to fight they would never have done that because it is a clear violation of international law which the Germans obeyed religiously but for a few exceptions. Their atrocities came in areas they thought were grey areas they thought they could exploit. Additionally, the Germans could never have used Jews to fight, first the entire regime was built on Anti-Semitism and more importantly Anti-Semitism directed at Bolshevik Russia. An often heard complaint of Communism by the Nazis was that the Bolsheviks were pawns of a greater Jewish conspiracy.

@MuthaRussia:

And F_alk,
Vergebung mein, fur ichsein mude! :-?
"Forgive me, For i was tired!
…Hope i wrote that right! :-?

Not at all :)

Vergebung gewährt unter der Bedingung, daß du nicht mehr versuchst, Deutsch zu sprechen, bis du ein weiteres Jahr Untericht genossen hast.

They could have built the regime without anti-semitism, indeed histrians have discovered that on the whole that was the least attractive aspect of Nazism to the German people.

No way. The nazi’s were successful because of deep long seeding anti-semitism in Germany. However, this was not unique to Germany though as it existed in France, Spain, and Italy as well. I would be very interested to see some links to the historians you refer to or books they’ve written because I would take issue with their conclusions just on face. The Nazi party was not that different from the dozens of partys that developed in post war Germany that preached the doctrine of Germany got screwed at Versailles lets undo it by force if needed. The main difference between the Nazis and everyone else was they claimed the German people were ‘stabbed in the back’ by the Jewish people especially the Bolshevik Communists/Socialists which were the cause for the revolution and thus Germany’s defeat.

Yes as for example take the Norwegian constetution from 1814… it states that no jew is to be allowed acess to Norway… Anti-semitism is rooted in far more countries then just the ones you mentioned.

exactly. Hitler could not have risen to power without anti-semitism. the jews were his scapegoat, which he used to unite the german people around him, and support his actions. after he took power though, he probably could have stopped the anti-semitism when they went to war, because by that time, the german public’s focus had shifted off of the jews.

Except this presupposes that Hitler and the Nazi elite were not very anti-semetic which they were. It’s really easy to say they could’ve stopped, but remember that at the time America had Jim Crow laws. If we’d begun to lose the war would we have abandoned Jim Crow in order to win. I really don’t think so. In fact, during the first 6-12 months of the war we were losing yet there wasn’t any great call to put black soldiers side by side with their white brothers. We kept Black soldiers in a lesser and subservient position because it fitted our social needs at the time. The same was absolutely true with Germany.

As for Sorte you’re absolutely right, but in Germany it was always a bit more virulent. I attribute this to the great antagonism that has historically existed between the slavs and germanic peoples and unfortunately jews got lumped in all the same. However, the example you provided of Norway is good, but lets not forget that one of the reason relatively few French or Italian jews died in the holocaust was because Spain, Franch and Italy all had inquisitions whose intent was to drive the jews from Europe. In fact the inquisition in Italy and Spain was still legally sanctioned although not in reality.