PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   History Debates
     Could Hitler have won?
       How close did the Axis powers come to winning WWII?

Topic Jump
« Back
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Bograt

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have done some reading recently, and I learned that Hitler could have easily won in europe and supported the Japanese in the Pacific against the American advance.


-------
Damn you Murphy!
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 2:28 PM on December 6, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

this statement is very true. If Hitler was not in charge, but rather his generals then germany could of and probaly would have won ww2. Attacking russia before britain fell was the greatest blunder. If germany would have finished off britain then there would have been no strategic air bases that could have ever bombed the industry of germany.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 5:13 PM on December 6, 2002 | IP
Bograt

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even with the second front he could have one. Had he givin the order to stop once the winter set in, he could have resupplied his troops, ect... and Russia would have fallen the next year. As it was, he went to far to effectivly support his troops.


-------
Damn you Murphy!
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 5:26 PM on December 6, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No bc the russians far eastern region went unharmed...it would have amassed great qantities of tanks and weapons since germany lacked a sufficient long range bomber to take out factories in far east russia.... if germany and japan would have worked together and japan never bombed pearl harbor then japan could of helped bomb eastern russia to prevent russia build up of arms. Hitler did not like the japanese bc they where not the "master race", so hitler never tried to cooperate with japan except for one time when a ship of japanese soldiers was heading from japan to north africa to help germany gain more oil from the mid east,....the ship turned around by order of hiroshito bc they needed the soldiers to prepare to invade the phillipines(this was before pearl harbor) Hitler was infuriated with the japanese and never tried to cooperate again. Italy was basically useless in ww2 they did absolutly nothing of any importance. If they would have stayed neutral and never had mussolini or never did anything then germany would have never had to worry about their southern border being invaded bc italy offered absolutley no defense when the allies came. Italy was a team member that didnt do its job and actually hurt the axis instead of even helping.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 06:09 AM on December 7, 2002 | IP
Bograt

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On ething about 'them tanks- the german tiger tank was vastly superior to anything the allies had. In fact, the only way a tiger would go down is a massive team-up. However, the tank was MAD for the russian stepps with a huge range and heavy armor, there are several cases of tigers getting hit HUNDREDS of times (sounds crazy, i know, I saw it on the history channel) and still moving on. There flaw was they were hard to support with gas and repairs, so I still think russia would have fallen or at least lost a lot more the next year. Also, the only thing hitler really wanted was oil there, and it was more central than eastern russia. As for the japanese, I think hitler would have at least supported them until america was out of it, then turned on them. OR would have let amereica waste her resources taking down japan, then hitting hard while we were still recovering. But, we got the Bomb before him (barely) and he killed his armies with foolish manuvers and poor resource managment.


-------
Damn you Murphy!
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 11:07 AM on December 7, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the tank you are refrencing is not the Tiger but the King Tiger. The king tiger was the tank that could take hundreds of hits and not go down. The tiger was better than any allied tank, but the king tiger was vastly greater than any tank. The Germans didnt have enough of these tanks as they neede. The Soviets did produce a great tank called the T-34 which they eventually got so many that the germans where greatly outnumbereed. 24 million russians where killed by the germans in ww2. 4million more russians where killed in the battle of berlin. Germany lost only around 6million people the whole war. This shows Germanys greatly supperioir tactics and technology. America hardly made an impact on the war in Europe, Canada actually had more soldiers in Europe than america did. The technology that germany had for rockets and jets was the basis for NASA. After the war german scientist such as Werner Von Braum and others came to AMERICA and showed us there technology of Jet engines and rocket engines. The technology in planes of modern times (believe it or not, but im a pilot so i should know) has not advanced since what we learned from the germans in ww2(other than on board comps for navigation).


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 4:17 PM on December 7, 2002 | IP
Bograt

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, the king tiger was a nightmare on wheels and I belive you are right about the armor (a first time admission for this forum). The tiger was still a superior tank though. As for the rocket technology: just imagine if hitler's scientists got the bomb out before they went down and loaded it on a V-2! I do, however contest the amount of involment we had in the european theater. Even with limited numbers, the us still had an impact on victory in europe. If not in ground troops, then the daylight bombing campaign, industry keeping britian afloat during the battle of the atlantic and the african theater that kept rommel tied up for the longest time, keeping from total victory in africa. (though he gave us a run for uor money for a while)


-------
Damn you Murphy!
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 5:12 PM on December 7, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

germany did actually develop an atomic bomb....it was accidently destroyed by a p-51 mustang that got lost on a tank busting mission and saw a train a strafted it ...that was out right luck. Germany was going to drop this bomb on the russians but as a twist of fate would have it ,it never got to be used. Americas only real impact on the war in europe was its industry. Daylight bombing really wasnt accurate at all, to many fighter planes too much Flak....to many misses...also america didnt bomb any factors in germany's annexed countries like austria or poland, partly bc they used Jews as workers (such as schindlers Jews) Russia, had far more to do with the war than america.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 02:16 AM on December 8, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didnt know that Germany had the bomb- you'll have to point me to a couple good sites so I can brush up. Anyway, the daylight bombing campaign was not all about surgical strikes-it was all about carpet bombing. As the war wors on, and the P-51 came around to provide escort for the whole trip for the bombers, daylight bombing became quite effective. Also, Russia had more to do witht the war b/c the war was on THEIR soil! Of course they would have more to do with it, they got betrayed by hitler.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:38 AM on December 11, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I dont know any sights about the Bomb but i have read many history books on ww2 and that is where i got it..also it was on the history channel one time. Carpet bombing living quarters while everyone is in bomb shelters is only a terror tactic. Industry still went on and people just had to cope. Russia had more to do with the war bc it fought more germans and lost more lives than anyone else. The western front was lightly defended bc most of all troops and armor divisions where occupied with the vast expanses of russia.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 01:11 AM on December 11, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hitler would have won ww2 if only these two things had happened:  if the us did not decide to save france's butt and if hitler did not try to fight a two front war. hitler had britain right where he wanted them and then all of a sudden he starts fighting the soviet union. btw, i dont understand why french people hate the usa. we totally came to their aid when they needed us. not only are french people stupid and lazy, but they also have a very short memory.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 5:37 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The reason the french hate is is bc france was already beaten, Germany set up a puppet government in vichy France and ruled the rest. The french people lived better than they evr had during the german occupation. The allies destroyed many french homes with barrages of artillery, we also looted french areas and bombed out there cities in order to drive out the germans. Most french people could have cared less that the germans where there bc the german soldiers where directly ordered to be "gentlemen". Sure there was the french resistence but that was a very very low percent of pop...France has always hated us bc after they helped us win our revolution against Britain by trapping Cornwallus and also supplying us with weapons and give money. We never repaid our war dept to them and we where in an agreement that we would be there allies but we never came through and helped them during there revolution like we promised, and we never helped them in the Napoleaonic wars bc we where at that time having our civil war and where unable to help them.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 02:48 AM on December 13, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

good point. france just sucks though. their whole history is about instablity and failed revolutions. havent they had like 5 or 6 republics since the days of napoleon?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 03:32 AM on December 13, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

France has not won a single battle since they lost waterloo...great history isnt it, a nation of losers.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 04:23 AM on December 13, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how would i know? i'm an idiot that doesnt know anything about history, remember?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:26 AM on December 13, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you asked.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 3:02 PM on December 13, 2002 | IP
Cool-Hand-Dave

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

please, for the sake of everything holy, don't start this here too.


-------
Cool Hand Dave
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 5:36 PM on December 13, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We need to set aside a forum so you two can bitch and moan at each other.  Here I'll say it and get it over with.  Madbilly is a inbred, bucktoothed, narrow-minded, simian knuckle-dragging conservative, and Fallingupwards is a weak-kneed, liberal tree-hugging pacifist pussy (who sucks at history).  Naw, I'm just kidding guys, now you two shake hands, hug and kiss, make up.  


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 7:56 PM on December 13, 2002 | IP
Nova

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

people usually joke about what is true.

No the Germasn did not have the bomb at all. The Germasn would not allow the uses of Einstiens theories because he was a jew and thus in their development they beilieved that it would take a chunk of uranium over a meter to reach critical mass thus they focused their monies on producing things such as the V2.

Hitler didn't read his history eithe. Time and time again don't attack Russia in the winter Geez Napoleon did it the tuetons did it you would think they would understand that the russians will keep throwing mindcontroled peons at you until it gets really cold and the attacking armies die of frost bite, and not much else, except maybe some really harsh russian vodka.
The americans were the western front. they supplied the British with supplies, they supplied the attack for the invasion of france and they kept their ground in the battle of the bulge. Of course the russians did a lot, they were just trying to use it as anexcuse to take over the world themselves.


-------
One God; One Truth; One Way
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 03:50 AM on December 25, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Germany didnt invade russia in the winter. They had plans to take moscow before autumn, but a massive counter attack and defensive strategy at stalingrad (lenningrad also) slowed the germans down. It wasnt einstein that solely invented the atomic bomb, Germany invaded finland for no reason other than to acquire "heavy water"(h30) for the development of the atomic bomb. Finland has "heavy water" naturally in some of its mountains. Germany's goal was not to take over the world, but instead to unite europe under the third reich, the first reich and second rreich just untied eurpe. In hitlers book mein Kampf he wrote "in the end my only allies will be britain and america". If he intended to take the world he wouldnt have said he would had allies such as america. Also he allied with Japan cause the germans only wanted all of europe and japan just wantd asia and the pacific.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 5:14 PM on December 25, 2002 | IP
Nova

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fact is the Russian winter did kill the german, an acount of the persistance in fighting while they were not equiped to do so. of course eistien did not invent the bomb but he helped with his theories. find a good source and show me where the germans already had the bomb. I doubt you can argue that taking russia would be uniting europe. some of russia is in europe but moostly it is asiatic.


-------
One God; One Truth; One Way
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 5:22 PM on December 25, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

adolph hitler believed that communist could not be tusted, so in order to secure an eastern border he had to take out russia, he wanted for germany to own all the land up to the ural mountains and nothing beyond.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:35 PM on December 25, 2002 | IP
ghettocracka

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

btw madbilly

h3o is hydronium, not found natrually

heavy water is d2o


-------
Dave C
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 1:58 PM on January 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

are you insane ???? Hitler did not want to take over the world !!! that was his ulitamite goal and he would stop at nothing till he did that. If he dint want to take over the world then why did he send some of his best officers and around 15,000 troops to africa to "help" Italy, so that when Italy won he could pull out his men and officers then attack because Hitler himself knew that Italy was a pathetic army. And why did he have U-boats in the Arafura sea attacking netural Australian and P.N.G ships ??? And they were indeed neutral and had nothing to do with supplies because Australia had its army factories in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth (i should know my grandapa worked in one). If you have seen Darwin you would know it was not capible of manufacturing warfare and espically not in the 40's, and it is not viable ither as it would be the first place Australia would be attacked from because Japan worked down the Pacific islands and would have launched its attck on Aus from PNG (go take a look at a map and look where Darwin is then look where Pupa new gunine is) comon you gotta be joking Germany didnt want world domination
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 07:50 AM on October 3, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hey
this is for the guy who said
'The allies got the A-bomb just before Germany'
I saw a documentary about Germany researching the A-bomb...this scientist (in Germany) had it all..the formula..everything.
yet, due to his conscience he held this infomation back.
so - Germany were ahead of a-bomb knowledge - lucky they didnt use that knowledge.

another thing

Russia did an enormous amount of damage towards Germany - WAY more than US/Brit.
Christ...majority of Germans were killed by Russians...over 2 million.
Without the Russians we would have lost...
Russia were becoming more and more industraliased etc etc..

Peace

anyone thinks im wrong?
correct me

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 07:14 AM on December 29, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from madbilly at 5:13 PM on December 6, 2002 :
this statement is very true. If Hitler was not in charge, but rather his generals then germany could of and probaly would have won ww2. Attacking russia before britain fell was the greatest blunder. If germany would have finished off britain then there would have been no strategic air bases that could have ever bombed the industry of germany.


I don't think so, Germany had to attack the Soviet Union now or never, they'd become too strong if they waited any longer, now had the germans handled it properly they would have taken moscow, ofcourse they should have gone for the oilfields in the south first as well.
Germany's biggest problem was the Luftwaffe who was subpar compared to the rest of the wehrmakt.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:54 AM on January 30, 2004 | IP
Paul_Goodfellow

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, so if the Germans had developed the bomb BEFORE the americans, then they could have easily used them on one of the many concentrations of the Allied soldiers, OR on london or Manchester, or one of the major ports in england. THEN, they English, fearing for their security, would have surrendered, and the Americans would have been forced to leave england, thus prompting a Peace treaty with the germans, thus leaving the russians to fight on alone. From then, the Russians probably would have fought to the bitter end, the germans are victorious, BUT, the Americans would have been fighting the Japanese, and won! From then, we can only guess how bad it would have been in Europe after the war...


-------
Yup, I am a cold peace!
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 10:37 AM on June 18, 2004 | IP
mipeni

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from madbilly at 5:14 PM on December 25, 2002 :
Germany didnt invade russia in the winter. They had plans to take moscow before autumn, but a massive counter attack and defensive strategy at stalingrad (lenningrad also) slowed the germans down. It wasnt einstein that solely invented the atomic bomb, Germany invaded finland for no reason other than to acquire "heavy water"(h30) for the development of the atomic bomb. Finland has "heavy water" naturally in some of its mountains. Germany's goal was not to take over the world, but instead to unite europe under the third reich, the first reich and second rreich just untied eurpe. In hitlers book mein Kampf he wrote "in the end my only allies will be britain and america". If he intended to take the world he wouldnt have said he would had allies such as america. Also he allied with Japan cause the germans only wanted all of europe and japan just wantd asia and the pacific.



Firstly, im pretty sure that germany didn´t finish the development of the nuclear bomb(meaning that they didn´t even test the bomb). They started the development in the late 1930´s so they were way ahead of the United States. I don´t know why they didn´t finish the bomb but maybe it was because the researchers didn´t want Hitler to have that kind of weapon so they slowed down the development and told Hitler that the research is in dead-end. For whatever reason Hitler posessed greater interest towards the development of the V2 missile(he wanted to bound England into dust with them) and the development of the nuclear bomb was just "on the side". Secondly Germany never invaded Finland. Germany and Finland fought together against Russia. Later in 1944 Finland entered a military alliance with Germany. Thirdly Hitlers ultimate dream was nazism all over world. Also in Japan first plans for conquering the world was introduced already in the 1920´s or 1910´s (im not sure)

(Edited by mipeni 9/15/2004 at 09:09 AM).
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 4:11 PM on September 14, 2004 | IP
mipeni

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 03:54 AM on January 30, 2004 :
Quote from madbilly at 5:13 PM on December 6, 2002 :
this statement is very true. If Hitler was not in charge, but rather his generals then germany could of and probaly would have won ww2. Attacking russia before britain fell was the greatest blunder. If germany would have finished off britain then there would have been no strategic air bases that could have ever bombed the industry of germany.


I don't think so, Germany had to attack the Soviet Union now or never, they'd become too strong if they waited any longer, now had the germans handled it properly they would have taken moscow, ofcourse they should have gone for the oilfields in the south first as well.
Germany's biggest problem was the Luftwaffe who was subpar compared to the rest of the wehrmakt.


Germany´s luftwaffe had many good pilots and had lots of good planes. So Luftwaffe wasn´t germany´s biggest problem. Infact it was their pride prior to Battle of Britain. Luftwaffe simply lost too many planes and pilots during Battle of Britain that the Luftwaffe never recoverd from it properly.

 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 1:39 PM on September 15, 2004 | IP
Tigerlilly

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's highly doubtful that Germany could have won the war. Even both Germany and Japan together..they had little chance.

Walton, Francis. Miracle of World War II: How American Industry Made Victory Possible, New York: Macmillan, 1956.

___ .Miracle of World War II; How American Industry Made Victory Possible.
New York. Macmillan, 1965.
HC106.4.W296.




After the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war against the United States. Now the immense American industrial capacity would be be working against the Axis powers- Germany, Italy, and Japan.


The Military and economic potential of the United States alone was staggering in World War II, and given it's fairly safe possition, its situation is very good.

Throughout world war II, the Allies vastly outstripped the Axis on most productive endeavours. For example, THe United States produced

1. A.  87,000 Tanks of various types, 58 thousand of which were the easy to produce, maintain Shermans. THey could crank those babies out so fast, it would make Germany's head spin. Quantity has a quality all its own.

Now, one of the most prolific tanks was the M4, but it ws a deathtrap, yes, and it was inferior to many German tanks in terms of protection, and early on, offensive power, however it became one of the most widely-used and effective tanks. Quality is beaten by the vast quanity. The US tank power lay in her industry.

B. On the other hand, Germany produced roughly a little less than 40 thousand tanks, many of which ranged quite drastically from older to newer varients (early mark 1 panzers to the panzer VI - E

C. Japan produced about 5000 tanks total throughout the war, and again, many of which were of various quality. I don't think the Japanese were too well-known for their weapons/talk quality either. They also list "tankettes" in this list of tanks.

D.  Another allied power, the SOviet Union, recieved ridiculous economic/industrial support from the united states. IN a way, the USA was the arsenal and economic giant behind the alied war effort. It was responsible for producing 52% of the world-at-war's weapons and products. It dwarfed the axis, and that's not even counting the SOviet Union.

However, the United States was a large supplier of money, heavy machinery, fuel, weapons, and foodstuffs to the Soviets. They are largely the reason why the Soviets didn't fully collapse and did as well as they did untill they got their own industry up and rolling.


All in all, with american support, the soviets produced a prodigious number of Heavy Combat Ground Vehicles: In terms of Tanks, they manufactured  105968 tanks--several of various quality and grade, much like in the case of germany and the United States.

Between 40-44, one of the most famous Russian tanks, derrived from an American Prototype and aid, was the T-34 medium tank. Over 36000 were produced during this time to steam roll the germans. Quantity beats quality when the quanity so vastly outnumbers the quality.

the appearance of T-34 definitely was an unpleasant surprise for German commanders as it could combat all German tanks effectively. It was faster had armament (50mm was the predominant calibre of tanks guns) and better armour protection due the technical innovation of sloped armour.


The Russians vastly outproduced the Germans at almost every step, and this is alone, with monetary and material aid from the United States. HItler had such a small chance of victory, it's almost inconceivable. He would have had to pull a magic rabbit out of his hat to defeat such vast industrial might.
The allied airforces and naval powers also vastly outclassed the Germans and axis powers.

he U-boats did not prevent the U.S. from supplying England with military and industrial goods or food, nor from building up U.S. forces in England (Operation Bolero), nor from providing Russia with substantial material help. Thus, most historians see the Battle of the Atlantic as a German failure.


Even with all the losses they inflicted early on, they still couldn't defeat the combined navies. The United States was slow at first, but soon (i think late 42-early 43, they got up a pretty good anti-sub defese). Then the germans got pwned, losing up to almost 800 of the 1100 some subs they produced.

In fact, one of the indirect results of the entire German Naval Campaign was not a weakening of teh Allied effort, but a strengthening. For example, it caused the united states to produce more and order more to make up for potential losses.

 In response to the German campaign, the U.S. ordered much greater quantities of munitions and supplies that was actually needed, in order to "fill the pipeline," to replace cargoes lost at sea and as a hedge against the Germans cutting the Atlantic supply lanes.(19)


Taking into account Russian national revenue (but not counting countries occupied by Germany), the total allied productive capacity was about 4 times that of Germany.



We should also take into consideration Germany's ally, Japan. Even with the losses at Pearl Harbour, the  Military productive capacity of the United States was staggering, and the losses it inflicted on the Japanese Navy were equally so. It whiped the seas clear of the IJP mostly by itself, but not entirely.

The US submarine campaign against Japan eclipsed that of GErmany's vs the allies. It destroyed the Japanese war and domestic economy.

"Bauxite imports fell off 88% just between the summer and fall of 1944. In 1945, pig iron imports plunged 89%, pulp 90%, raw cotton and wool 91%, fats and oils 92%, iron ore 95%, soda and cement 96%, lumber 98%, fodder 99%, and not one ounce of sugar or raw rubber reached Japan."


The enormous drop in importation of raw materials resulted in a significant drop in Japanese industrial production. In fact, the Japanese mobilization committee stated in a late 1944 report: "Shipping lost or damaged since the beginning of the war amounts to two and one half times newly constructed shipping and formed the chief cause of the constant impoverishment of national strength."


After September 1943, the ratio of petroleum successfully shipped from the southern regions that reached Japan never exceeded 28%, and during the last 15 months of the war the ratio only averaged 9%.(62)  The losses are especially impressive when one considers that the Japanese Navy alone required 1.6 million barrels monthly to operate


The US navy smashed Japan so heartily, that they were reduced to transporting oil on their battleships and attempting ot use Potatos for fuel.

The axis could not realisticaly have won WW2 without dramatic shifts in allegeances and circumstances.

http://www.freeglossary.com/US_weapon_production_%281942-1945%29




(Edited by Tigerlilly 1/12/2005 at 03:52 AM).


One major problem for Germany in WW2 was her allies. THey sucked and they were a drain on her. This, of course, is in addition to the almost insane industrial inferiority.

(Edited by Tigerlilly 1/12/2005 at 03:58 AM).


-------
If it hurts no one, then there's nothing immoral about it.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 02:09 AM on January 12, 2005 | IP
gumbo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is a funny story about the last name "Hitler":
The name Hitler has had many different spellings including Huetler and Hiedler. Adolf’s father, Alois, was born to Johann Georg Hiedler and Maria Anna Schicklgruber. Because he was an illegitimate son, he bore the name Alois Schicklgruber until he was thirty-nine. Alois’ father then came and “adopted” Alois Schicklgruber who then became Alois Hitler. If Alois’ father had not come for his son, “Hiel Schicklgruber,” might have seemed like more of a joke than a greeting (Shirer p 6-7). Adolf Hitler also knew that this comical last name may be a problem as he told his boyhood friend August Kubizek, “[It] seemed to him so uncouth, so boorish, apart from sounding clumsy and unpractical” (Shirer, William. "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." p 8).


-------
Heron of Alexandria invented modern times.

-Gumbo A.
yes my real name is Gumbo Akmed
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 7:28 PM on December 1, 2005 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, Hitler could not have won.  Germany was defeated before they even began.  Why?  GEOGRAPHY and INDUSTRIAL POWER

Germany did not have the geographical size and industrial strength of USA or Russia during the 1940's.  Or you could say the potential for industrial strength was already there in USA and Russia

It was a lost cause from the very beginning.  Geography and industrial might determines who wins World Wars.

USA and Russia were destined to win because of their size and power.. Hitler had NO CHANCE
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 2:30 PM on October 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, based on his own moves, Hitler probably could have won if he had stuck to taking over one country at a time.  He had no chance once he started fighting on both fronts.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:55 PM on October 8, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hitler could not take over Britain , nobody was stopping him except Britain.  That was one country at a time.  Why?  Air Power... the luftwaffe was no match for the British spitfires

Hitler knew air power was supreme in taking over Britain.  Luftwaffe failed so he launched V rockets instead just for spite.

Agreed fighting on more than one front was dumb.  But Hitler knew he would have to fight Russia somewhere in the future, so why not when he did?  The more you wait the stronger Russia gets.

USA didnt get over there until 1944, amazing and eight months later the war ends...Americans we just too bad
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 2:19 PM on October 8, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hitler could not take over Britain , nobody was stopping him except Britain.  That was one country at a time.  Why?  Air Power... the luftwaffe was no match for the British spitfires

Hitler knew air power was supreme in taking over Britain.  Luftwaffe failed so he launched V rockets instead just for spite.


That's simply not true. Hitler could have invaded by land. It would have been costly, but he would have won because Britain was for the time being without American military assistance. Economical backing from the US wouldn't have been enough at that point.

Instead, though, Hitler decided that he didn't really hate the English, as they were, according to his line of thought, "the second most superior of all races in the world." So, Hitler turned to the USSR. He hated Slavs, and he didn't trust Stalin.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:46 PM on October 10, 2006 | IP
DBettino

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Totalitarians usually end up destroying their own empires out of paranoia or catastrophic blunders.  Such was the case with Hitler.  He could easily have won had he not let his own irrational fears get in the way.


-------
Wake up, West!
-Oriana Fallaci
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 03:41 AM on October 13, 2006 | IP
gman

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Bograt at 2:28 PM on December 6, 2002 :
I have done some reading recently, and I learned that Hitler could have easily won in europe and supported the Japanese in the Pacific against the American advance.


Please provide the material which suggested this.
America was not the catalyst that ended Hitler's dream militarily speaking. But America's industrial machine would have eventually cleaned their clock.





-------
The Government that governs least, governs best.
R.R.
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 10:54 AM on November 25, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Look at Germany's weapons they were far better than the allies, the problem ws that Hitler ignored his generals. You know that's what we are doing now.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:37 PM on October 12, 2007 | IP
falconzz

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Germany would have had a much better chance if they had occupied England in 40 or 41, then as some of his generals wanted...occupy Iraq for the oil. Plus they would have gained access to the Indian Ocean and the resources of the East. Japan needed oil and would have provided many strategic materials in trade. Russia could have been dealt with later.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 8:54 PM on February 18, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Germany would have had a better chance if they had not taken on the whole world at one time.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 8:45 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree. Hitler would have won if he had started WW2 a couple years later, when they had already developed M262's and V-1's and V-2's.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 5:55 PM on September 7, 2008 | IP
The Debater

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Have you forgoten about what the allies did?

Operation Sealion would have failed even with out the RAF. Hitler had to few ships and did not even have decent landing craft.

Also by 1943 Americas PACIFIC navy (not including the atlantic navy) was larger than all the other waring nations navys COMBINED. That just an example of Americas war capacity.


-------
The Debater
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 3:51 PM on November 24, 2009 | IP
JETZEN

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Bograt at 2:28 PM on December 6, 2002 :
I have done some reading recently, and I learned that Hitler could have easily won in europe and supported the Japanese in the Pacific against the American advance.


no way Germany could have won WW2 Europe

1. the 3rd Reich could not destroy England

2. the 3rd Riech got chased out of N.Africa

3. the 3rd Riech lost Italy

4. the 3rd Riech lost Normandy and had to get out France

5. the 3rd Riech lost the eastern front

6. the Russians invaded Germany

7. the rest of the Allies invaded Germany

8. the end of the WW2 European theater

Germany had no problems in the begining against countries like Poland and France. But their overconfidence and internal problems destroyed them. They were their own worse enemies.

They had great weapons but they could not mass produce them cheaply like America could. and they had very limited oil.

If i'm not mistaken the last war of any consequence that Germany won was the Franco-Prussian War in 1870.

The Germans were way to mistake prone to of had any chance of winning WW2.









(Edited by JETZEN 3/29/2010 at 4:38 PM).

(Edited by JETZEN 3/29/2010 at 4:45 PM).

(Edited by JETZEN 3/29/2010 at 4:51 PM).


-------
split wood...not atoms, L.RoyJetzen
 


Posts: 213 | Posted: 4:24 PM on March 29, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am constantly astonished by all the misinformation about the Second World war. I dont blame any of you who are repeating it, it was placed there by bad movies and worse television. i really, REALLY suggest some comprehensive reading about the war if you want to learn something, I can even suggest a few excellent books, depending on your fields of interest.

I'm a professional Historian and professor of Modern History, and you would not believe some of the things people think they know about the war.

"Germany had great weapons!"

No, actually, they didnt. Throughout most of the war they were consistently outgunned and out powered by their opposition. In the Battle of France the German tanks were both inferior in quality and number to the French. same in North Africa. Only in 1943 and 1944 did the last generation of upgunned tanks give germany PARITY with the allies, and only late in the war did now-infamous weapons like the Panther, the Tiger, the King Tiger and the Elephant start to appear. But even these were terrible tanks: over 60% of Tigers were destroyed due to critical failure and abandoned, they were terribly built. The King Tiger threw treads every dozen kilometers, and had complete engine meltdowns after 50 hours running time.

In the air germany was utterly outclassed. they never produced a next generation propellor fighter after 1940, and the Me-262 is the single most overrated aircraft in human history. I could go on, but in almso every single area of warfare, German equipment was inferior to its major opponents, with a few exceptions (Poland, Russia in 1941)


-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:04 AM on July 14, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As to other responses in this forum:

The V1 was barely useful and not cost effective, and the V2 was the single most insane and self-destructing weapon of the entire war. It killed more Germans in development than it did allies in deployment, and was insanely cost-ineffective.

As to the initial question of the thread, exactly HOW was German supposed to 'support' Japan half a world away? The two nations were not allies, they didnt even converse on strategic matters at even the most general level.

There is only ONE way Hitler could have won the war, only one: that would be to maintain the Nazi-Soviet pact. But this 'hypothetical' is absolutely impossible of course, as the invasion of Russia was Hitler's raison d'etre since 1918. It was deliniated in great detail in his 1924 book, and was the excuse for everything he did.


-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:09 AM on July 14, 2010 | IP
kvadra

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think that if Das Dritte Reich had taken Great Britain's BEF (British Expeditionary Force) at Dunkerque, it would be much easier for 3.R to make her way to London. 3.R had great success in België, because they got inside information from Edward 8th, the Duke of Windsor. 3.R thought that would be the end of the western front, but to Hitlers annoyance Prime Minister Churchill wanted otherwise.
What kept the Luftwaffe from performing as well as The Royal Air Force was their inferior aviation fuel. The Allies got their oil from Iraq, Canada and other places, while 3.R largely had to produce synthetic oil. That gave The Royal Air Force and its allies a significant advantage.
Hitler would probably have seen some healthy improvements in research, had he not scared off many of his scientists to the USA. That was wery stupid of Hitler, because that's what helped transform the USA from being a developing country before the war, into the world's most powerful country after the war.
Maybe Hitler didn't have the technology, but he certainly had the attack tactics in order. Blitzkrieg was wery effective.
But one thing's for shure, there were made a lot of mistakes during the war, on both sides. Just to point out a few:
1. France stopped their advance shortly after crossing the border to 3.R. They should have got the British to join the attack, and crush 3.R from the west. 3.R had second to no military personnel there; they were all quite busy in Poland.
2. Hitler should have stopped after he defeated France. He should have kept the Soviet-Nazi pact. His advance into the eastern block worried Stalin, and Stalin had a crappy army back then. Stalin couldn't even take more than a few miles of Finland!
3. Japan should never ever have gone to war with the USA. The Emperor Hirohito had some great military power, but c'mon, the USA? It's simply too big to take.
4. Norway should have made a deal with 3.R about safe transportation of iron ore from Narvik. That way, Hitler wouldn't have to take Norway. I'm not sure that would be enough to ensure their neutrality, though, as Hitler regarded "the land of the vikings" as the homeland of the aryan race.
About the war in Norway: Things started to heat up, when a German wessel traveling south along the Norwegian coastline had to take cover from the British in a little Norwegian fjord, Jøssingfjord. Unfortunately, the British followed shortly after. The British trapped the Germans and the Germans had to flee. Half of them took the road north, to the small village of Hauge i Dalane, and the other half chose the other way, to Åna Sira. The British lit up the mountainside with heavy arms even though the Germans made no attempt to engage the British. This put the Norwegian neutrality under a great pressure. Great Britain had performed actions of war in Norwegian soil. Any reprisals from Norway did not take place, partly because Norway had special bonds with England (Queen Maud was the daughter of King Edward VII of the United Kingdom), and their military was in bad shape. Nevertheless, Norway also had royal bonds with the old Königreich Preußen (Kingdom of Prussia), as the king was son of Frederik 8th of Denmark, who was of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, which originates from northern Germany. The rest of the story, you probably know. But there is one interesting event in the Russian campaign in Norway, that's worth noticing: The Russians eventually got the Germans out of Finmark (the northernmost part of Norway). Although they might easily have claimed the territory for themselves, they actually withdrew from Norway. For some reason, Stalin wanted Norway to be as it was before the war. Now, some of you might think that Norway was just a piece of junk at that time, but there were enourmous amounts of fish in the North Sea, which Stalin definitely needed. Norway later joined the NATO, is very economically stable and exports HUGE amounts of oil, so that might have been one of Stalins biggest mistakes. :P

If you feel I have claimed something which isn't true, please let me know.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 06:04 AM on July 17, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

With respect, you have made a few errors and false assumptions about the war:

Quote from kvadra at 12:04 AM on July 17, 2010 :
I think that if Das Dritte Reich had taken Great Britain's BEF (British Expeditionary Force) at Dunkerque, it would be much easier for 3.R to make her way to London.


While the loss of the BEF would have been a shattering blow to morale, it would have made no difference to the fate of the UK: The battle of Britain was decided in the air, and after that at sea: the lack of equipped ground forces made no difference at all.

3.R had great success in België, because they got inside information from Edward 8th, the Duke of Windsor.


This conspiracy theory has been debunked, and is quite false. Yes the Duke of Windsor was unpleasantly friendly with Nazi germny before the war, but that is because he felt the two nations could come to a compromise. He was an idiot, but not a traitor: his first loyalties were always to the UK, and he certainly never provided any military information or plans to the Germans, in fact he would not even have been privy to defensive deployments in the Ardennes or south belgium.

What kept the Luftwaffe from performing as well as The Royal Air Force was their inferior aviation fuel. The Allies got their oil from Iraq, Canada and other places, while 3.R largely had to produce synthetic oil.


This is inaccurate on a few levels. Firstly, in 1940-1941 Germany was getting almost no oil from synthetic fuel, in fact almost all of their fuel oil and AVgas came from Romania and the Soviet Union, who was shipping them massive quantities of resources and supplies as part of the Nazi-Soviet pact.

Secondly, fuel had nothing to do with the loss in the battle of Britain: Germany lost because of the limitations of its own fighters and bombers, and the revolutionary air control system of Britain's fighter command. It also Lost because the battle of Britain was always a sideshow to Hitler, who was, by september 1940 when the battle of britain was at its height, already diverting resources towards the planned invasion of Russia.

Hitler would probably have seen some healthy improvements in research, had he not scared off many of his scientists to the USA. That was wery stupid of Hitler, because that's what helped transform the USA from being a developing country before the war, into the world's most powerful country after the war.


It is true many nuclear scientists fled from germany and Italy in the years before the war, but few other fields were affected by this, and the US was not a 'developing country' before the war, it was the single largest and most productive economy on the planet.


1. France stopped their advance shortly after crossing the border to 3.R. They should have got the British to join the attack, and crush 3.R from the west. 3.R had second to no military personnel there; they were all quite busy in Poland.


Neither France nor Britain had any capacity to push into Germany through the Sigfried line in 1939. yes, we now know that Germany had few forces there, but this was not known at the time, and even without a lot of troops, the fortifications of the german border were ferocious. Neither nation was fully mobilised for war, and Britain had almost no troops ready for deployment.

Hitler should have stopped after he defeated France. He should have kept the Soviet-Nazi pact.


This is absolutely true, but it was NEVER going to happen. The war against Russia was Hitler's raison d'etre since 1924. It was always the single goal driving him, even earlier than his plan for the genocide of the Jews.

Japan should never ever have gone to war with the USA. The Emperor Hirohito had some great military power, but c'mon, the USA? It's simply too big to take.


Absolutely correct.

Norway should have made a deal with 3.R about safe transportation of iron ore from Narvik. That way, Hitler wouldn't have to take Norway.


Norway was a gonner no matter what they did. Hitler needed control of the the Norwegian coast to allow him to sortie his ships and subs from his North sea bases. The lack of this in WW1 kept the german navy bottled up and under surveillance. It was naval access, stragetic mobility and resources that compelled his invasion of Norway: there was nothing the Norwegians could have done to avoid it short of unconditionall surrender.

Notably, he also wanted to capture the Norwegian merchant navy, the third largest in the world at the time, but failed as this almost all fled to the UK.




-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 04:37 AM on July 22, 2010 | IP
kvadra

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you very much for your input!

I'm not sure about what you say about the Duke of Windsor, though. I think the CIA, FBI or some other American intelligence agency and the British Secret Intelligence Service have some evidence, which proves how the Duke tipped off the Germans shortly before the low countries were attacked.
The Germans were actually planning to take the north of Belgium first, and the Allies thought so too. So they focused their defensive capacity there. They figured the Germans would struggle too much if they had to roll down the woodland in the Ardennes. When Hitler got to know about their main defensive position, he made a change in plans.
Somewhat unfortunately, Belgium was an ally of the French after WWI, but became neutral in late 1930's. If they hadn't, the French might have made the Maginot line longer. That way, they might have managed to repel the Germans more effectively.
I now see how I totally missed on the fuel issue. You are quite right! :P
The British may have had a revolutionary way of commanding their air fleet, thanks to their Radio Direction Finding (RADAR) equipment. The Chain Home stations consisted of two parts: The high altitude radar (the masts) and the low altitude radar (the dishes). The low altitude radar functions quite like a modern radar. For some reason I don't recall, they couldn't use them for higher altitudes.
The British didn't know it, but the Germans certainly did also have radar systems, which were actually superior to the Chain Home system. The Germans probably knew what the masts were all there for, but they didn't appreciate their significance. As far as I know, only one CH mast was targeted during the Battle of Britain.
Maybe the USA wasn't a developing country during that period, but I'm not sure I would call it a fully developed country either, like Britain, France and Germany. But don't take my word on it; I'm not an expert on American history.
I wonder why Hitler didn't see the enormous risk he ran when attacking the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics! The worlds largest country isn't defeated just like that. Sure, he may have been close to some major breakthroughs, like Leningrad (St. Petersburg) and Stalingrad (Volgograd), but Stalin would fight to the bitter end.
By the way, did I mention how Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, if not worse, when it comes to genocide? Stalin killed off poor farmers in extreme numbers during the pre-war period. Hitler wanted to wipe the Jews off the surface of the Earth, but Stalin actually recklessly slaughtered his own people.
Your views on the campaign in Norway is very interesting. I haven't really thought of it that way before. How the attack was actually quite advantageous to the Nazi forces. Norway actually never surrendered. That makes the Norwegian constitution the oldest uninterrupted constitution of any monarchy, which is still in effect. At the time of the dissolution with Denmark (1814), the new constitution was the worlds most liberal. The Paragraph on Jews was removed from the constitution sometime during the 20's, I think. Hitler probably didn't support that.

Best regards, Magne.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 6:53 PM on July 23, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from kvadra at 12:53 PM on July 23, 2010 :
I'm not sure about what you say about the Duke of Windsor, though.


I'm sorry, I have never heard this before, nor does it fit with what we know of the man himself, nor of what happened during the battle of France.

When Hitler got to know about their main defensive position, he made a change in plans.


No. The original plan proposed by Halder called for a slogging war of attrition through the low countries, and it ws abandoned as soon as manstein came up with a plan for a war of maneuver from Sedan. This was accepted by the high command. Everyone knew where the French and belgian defences were, they were hardly secret: they had nothing to do with the change of plan, simply Hitler's preference for the war of maneuver and the potential for a quick victory.

The British didn't know it, but the Germans certainly did also have radar systems, which were actually superior to the Chain Home system. The Germans probably knew what the masts were all there for, but they didn't appreciate their significance. As far as I know, only one CH mast was targeted during the Battle of Britain.


The German Freya and Wurtemburg radar was inferior to the British equipment, though not significantly. The Germans crtainly did target the radar systems, repeatedly, but had little sucess. They are tiny targets, and knocking down a radar tower takes the set out of service for between 4 to 6 hours at best. It was simply a terrible use of resources with a low sucess rate. Germany understood radar, what they did not understand was Dowding's amazing coordinated air defence system.

Maybe the USA wasn't a developing country during that period, but I'm not sure I would call it a fully developed country either, like Britain, France and Germany.


The US at that time had a larger economy than france, germany and the UK put together, by a wide margin. It was already the most developed economy in the world, and the largest producer of most strategic resources. It was in every measurable way more developed economically than any european country: what it did NOT have was a large military in 1939.

I wonder why Hitler didn't see the enormous risk he ran when attacking the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics!


He didnt see it that way. He described Russiaas a rotten barn that would collapse as soon as you kicked the doors in. He saw Russia as a country that lost to japan in 1905, barely managed a win over Finland in 1939-40, and purged most of their military senior staff in 1937-38. Hitler's view on Russia was not unique, the UK and the US both thought Russia would capitulate within weeks after the beginning of Barbarossa.

Any other country in the world would have. remember that the vast majority of Russia's inductry, resources and food production is between moscow and the western border: Russia lost about 20% of its land, but over 50% of its productivity in 1941-42.



-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 10:21 AM on July 24, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just to add, I noted a couple other comments made earlier about the Germans in the war i had to address:

Germany never developed the atomic bomb, and in fact, they never got close. At the end of the war they were still 3 to 4 months away from their first test at creating a sustained nuclear reaction, and had they proceeded with that test it would have been a spectacular and disasterous failure: their control method was to throw lumps of coal into the reaction chamber, a completely ineffective method od preventing a runaway reaction. It would have gone critical and irradiated the entire area killing most of germany's scientists.

The reasons germany never got near the war are threefold: one, the project was totally unfunded, as Hitler had no interest whatsoever in it when he was told it would not likely produce a weapon for 6 to 8 years.
Two, germany never developed an effective method to purify uranium to war grade materiel: they were hard pressed to purify it enough for a sustained reaction, let alone a bomb. Three, and most importantly, their maths and calcualtions were WAY off. They made a series of scientific errors so gross and prohibitive that they would have had to start all over again.

The errors are SO gross that it has been specualted that they were intention, done by one of their scientists, likely heisenburg, to sabitage the project. several books (and a play) have been written about this theory, though it is unconfirmable.


Secondly, the air war against germany was VERY effective: someone earlier stated it accomplished little. In fact it caused significant damage to german inductry, and forced them into a program of decentralisation, which crippled their economic output. It was very effective in operational objectives, such as smashing transportation networks and preventing movement of troops and raw materiels, but most of all, probably its single greatest contribution, was that it led to the complete destruction of the Luftwaffe.

Just read the German accounts of the effect of the Bombing, such as by Albert Speer, the minister of Industry at the start of the war, where he blamed the loss on Allied bombing, which so hurt production growth, so crippled and Luftwaffe and tied up so meny men (over a million on AD duties) and AA artillery, that it prevented those resources from stabilising the eastern front in 1944.


-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 05:19 AM on August 4, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.