WW2: Germany might have won if..

[Rittmester]

The classic rerunning: the ultimate "what if". As the debate is going strong in a hijacked thread, I thought we'd move it here:

So, in my opinion, ze Germans could have won the war if they..

1. Geared up for "total war" in Sept 39.
2. Applied H-plan Naval Force doctrine (versus Home Fleet)
3. Destroyed the British army at Dunerque. -The imminent threat of invasion would force the Fighter command over the channel and exhaust the RAF much faster. Prolonged Bf109 air time and permanent loss of downed pilots should tip the scale in German favor. Air supremacy in the channel and a heavy German surface fleet would make Seelöwe hard to resist, knocking UK out of the war.
4. Heavier emphasis on Blitzkrieg formations, applying Pz-IV's only (later Panthers only). One production type of aircraft per category; Fw190, Hs129, Ju88. Mechanize and motorize the infantry as much as possible.
5. Barbarossa should still concentrate on the encirclement and destruction of large formations, but must also pursuit the all important objectives; to take Leningrad and Moscow in 41.
6. No declaration of war against the USA (leave the Japs to deplete themselves with that decision). The US might have been happy to be left alone to crush Japan, as there's no real springboard to take on the Germans in Europe anymore (With the Gibraltar and Suez now in German hands). Btw - no allies in Europe no more.
6. No invasion of Norway. With UK out, the campaign against Yugoslavia and Greece is not an issue. Barbarossa can start in early May 41 with the full, combined force of the Wehrmacht. Yugoslavia (without the coup) might have joined Hungary, Slovakia, Rumania, and Bulgaria.7. Pressure on Turkey and Spain to enter or support the Axis more (might have brought the Italian fleet to the Black sea). This might be less difficult with the German total victory in the West. Sweden and Persia might also tend to support the Germans at such a height of victorious campaigns.
8. Ending/shutting up Adolf in 1942 (leaving the generals to do their job).
9. No subs, V1&2's, Atlantic Wall, AA or Western fighter screen.
10. Welcome the many Soviet volunteers by creating "Liberation army of the Ukraine", etc. Avoid cruelty toward civilians and POWs.
11. No Holocaust! The dissent made by this, and the moral implications among righteous men avoided. More trains available to supply the front. Talented people spared. -Humanity and historical honor intact.
12. Emphasize on general chivalric or civilized warfare to all soldiers. More Rommel, Manstein and Kesselring. Less Himmler, Heydrich and Göring (so to speak). This might lessen the brutality at the front, making the Russians less vengeful or hesitant to surrender.
13. No political prestige interference in the Oberkommando, Stalingrad's avoided (encircle cities).
14. USSR given reasonable conditions to surrender, but must give up Moscow, Leningrad, much of heavy industry and weapons.

[Freibier]

oh my, not this **** again

[Andreas]

Im so glad tze germanz dident win, I dont look good in letherhausen....

[Freibier]

pft, everybody looks good in lederhosen!

[Basillicus]

OK, maybe, but that's stretching it just a little. :)

Why would the Germans/Nazis have wanted to take the Europe and especially USSR if they didn't have this racial supremacy thing? What kind of nazis would they have been if they didn't try to enslave the Slavs. I also have a feeling that you just can't invade Russia by force, it's just so huge and if the defenders are motivated that war would never end. And how would Hitler have known when to step down, and especially why since he was doing good so far. Basically it all comes down to the thing that the Nazi leaders were what they were, and nothing can change that. And without them there isn't any WW2-what-if-scenario (or maybe there is but it's something completely different).

[Rittmester]

HAHA! Oh yes, this ****'s up again. I can't get my Hearts of Iron II working in my stupid Windows Vista, so I'm plotting here in stead. Playing Germany is the real challenge in WW2 strategy games, so this theme is always relevant for the advanced gamer.

And I'm glad I'm not marching around in leather pants too p-)

[Switek]

Germany might have won if..

Hitler wasn't imself. Fortunatelly he was.

[Dragonscript]

If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump thier butts when they jump.


There is a long laundry list of what germany could have done to win WWII but it doesn't matter because history doesn't judge "what if" but what happened.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Germany might have won if they didn't get their ass kicked.

[Rittmester]

All you teenagers can go to bed now, its close to 22 CET.

I'll sit and wait for Lokos in my lair..

[randy10]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/2179034222_52551ff3b4_o.gif

[AlphaOneSix]

That animation makes reading this thread worthwhile.

[Rittmester]

OK, maybe, but that's stretching it just a little. :)

Why would the Germans/Nazis have wanted to take the Europe and especially USSR if they didn't have this racial supremacy thing? What kind of nazis would they have been if they didn't try to enslave the Slavs. I also have a feeling that you just can't invade Russia by force, it's just so huge and if the defenders are motivated that war would never end. And how would Hitler have known when to step down, and especially why since he was doing good so far. Basically it all comes down to the thing that the Nazi leaders were what they were, and nothing can change that. And without them there isn't any WW2-what-if-scenario (or maybe there is but it's something completely different).

War can be seen as a great game of chess, right? After the match, a player can discuss the moves, and portray where and how things went wrong. I am, as you, making a point about the need to change leadership policies and strategies as a part of the quest to winning that campaign.

[zad]

Germany lost the war the 22th of june of 1941 by breaking the first rule of the war, after that the defeat was just a logic Inevitability. p-)



The US has broken the second rule of war. That is, don't go fighting with your land army on the mainland of Asia. Rule One is don't march on Moscow. I developed these two rules myself.
In the House of Lords on American policy in Vietnam, 1962. Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery

[Freibier]

One on One we would've won against every single nation but they all cheated p-)

[gaijinsamurai]

I don't know. You Germans wouldn't have gotten far without your Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian allies (wink).

[Mr.K]

pft, everybody looks good in lederhosen!

No need to start a war for global domination my German friends! My dad had a pair of lederhosen as a child and a soviet citizen in the 1960s.
It was german, which meant western, therefore fashionable.woot

[Rittmester]

I don't know. You Germans wouldn't have gotten far without your Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian allies (wink).

...BULGARIA!

[Lion of War]

...BULGARIA!

....IRAN!!!!

[Lt. James Anderson]

They could've won if they got Russians on their side. Instead of ... the Russians=communist ... should've beed the Russians= allies ... Something along the lines with Bismarck's view of Russian and Russians.

[gaijinsamurai]

...BULGARIA!

I knew I forgot somebody (the Shah too, Lion of War!).

[T3ngu]

Germany might have won if..

Hitler wasn't imself. Fortunatelly he was.

Hmm pretty much sums it up. Doesn't matter what we discuss most things boil down to Hitlers wish to rule the world i.e. [bright idea] Lets invade Russia and alienate them while im fighting on other fronts [/bright idea]

[RomanS]

14. USSR given reasonable conditions to surrender, but must give up Moscow, Leningrad, much of heavy industry and weapons.



roflroflroflrofl

[Pandy]

Oh ****, not this bull**** again

[Winger]

I don't know. You Germans wouldn't have gotten far without your Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian allies (wink).

Bulgaria STRONG!

[Chulo]

roflroflroflrofl

why are u laughing? he did say "Reasonable terms" .. everyone would surrender if they were given reasonable terms

[Winger]

Way too many "what if" scenarios and not enough speculation on what could have been reasonably plausible.

For example, the success or failure of Barbarossa hinged on the timing. So instead of speculating what if more forces were available by the date the offensive started you should focus on what could have happened if Hitler had delayed it until 1944 or not done anything at all.

The Soviet were well in place to maintaining their end of the pact so long as Stalin was in charge. He personally trusted Hitler up until the day Hitler broke the pact with Barbarossa. There is enough historical documentation to support this.

[Euroamerican]

Hard to imagine Hitler would not have attacked Russia in the long run. He hated the communists and needed the Lebensraum.

Hard to believe that the Axis could have ever really knocked the British Empire out. Even if the British Isles had been conquered, the Commonwealth countries would still have existed and at least some of the Royal Navy would have been around to pose a threat.

Hard to believe that the Commonwealth countries would not have eventually joined with the US. Only if the Japanese had not also attacked both the US, British, Australian, and Dutch holdings in Asia....

[Annihilator9112]

When Hitler wanted to attack soviet union what if he asked for peace with Britain and france by returning poland and france? would they accept the peace offer from hitler? if they accepted then hitler could of attacked soiviet union.
Or instead of attacking poland he could of 1st attacked soviet union then nobody would care???

[c-eight]

Germany lost the war the 22th of june of 1941 by breaking the first rule of the war, after that the defeat was just a logic Inevitability. p-)

Let's elaborate.

Every dictators who prepeared their evil plans - the eyes wide open all night long in the wet intimity of their single bed p-) - begin the war with a superior tactic against those who had a life previously.

They win.

Next time it's experienced soldiers who now know well how to use their 'superior tactic' against rookies. They win.

Then the dictator begin to belive his own propaganda and think they are a 'superior race' (or the 'greatest people of the universe': Napoleon) while they just had a 'superior tactic'. And he attacks more and more.

But the other side is less and less rooky and learn to counter the superior tactic and/or use it for himself. Then it's the end for the dictator even if he doesn't know it yet. Only to weight of iron will counts then.

End 1940 all the items were already in place for the future defeat of the germans. The right way to cancel the Blitzkrieg was know by June 1940. Too late for France, too many losses in May, but nevertheless known and already implemented.

Also the Germans would never had crossed the Chanel. Impossible. Big BS that IMO.


Or instead of attacking poland he could of 1st attacked soviet union then nobody would care???And how do you go to Russia without crossing Poland? :)

[toki]

This thread is useless, so go here:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=126674

It has "Germany" in it, but actually matters.

[Annihilator9112]

Let's elaborate.

Every dictators who prepeared their evil plans - the eyes wide open all night long in the wet intimity of their single bed p-) - begin the war with a superior tactic against those who had a life previously.

They win.

Next time it's experienced soldiers who now know well how to use their 'superior tactic' against rookies. They win.

Then the dictator begin to belive his own propaganda and think they are a 'superior race' (or the 'greatest people of the universe': Napoleon) while they just had a 'superior tactic'. And he attacks more and more.

But the other side is less and less rooky and learn to counter the superior tactic and/or use it for himself. Then it's the end for the dictator even if he doesn't know it yet. Only to weight of iron will counts then.

End 1940 all the items were already in place for the future defeat of the germans. The right way to cancel the Blitzkrieg was know by June 1940. Too late for France, too many losses in May, but nevertheless known and already implemented.

Also the Germans would never had crossed the Chanel. Impossible. Big BS that IMO.

And how do you go to Russia without crossing Poland? :)
Tell poland that soviets want to take poland land and germany is there to stop them? ahahha or just fly over poland and drop the troops in soviet union. ahhaha
Make peace with Poland?

[TR1]

The classic rerunning: the ultimate "what if". As the debate is going strong in a hijacked thread, I thought we'd move it here:

So, in my opinion, ze Germans could have won the war if they..

1. Geared up for "total war" in Sept 39.
2. Applied H-plan Naval Force doctrine (versus Home Fleet)
3. Destroyed the British army at Dunerque. -The imminent threat of invasion would force the Fighter command over the channel and exhaust the RAF much faster. Prolonged Bf109 air time and permanent loss of downed pilots should tip the scale in German favor. Air supremacy in the channel and a heavy German surface fleet would make Seelöwe hard to resist, knocking UK out of the war.
4. Heavier emphasis on Blitzkrieg formations, applying Pz-IV's only (later Panthers only). One production type of aircraft per category; Fw190, Hs129, Ju88. Mechanize and motorize the infantry as much as possible.
5. Barbarossa should still concentrate on the encirclement and destruction of large formations, but must also pursuit the all important objectives; to take Leningrad and Moscow in 41.
6. No declaration of war against the USA (leave the Japs to deplete themselves with that decision). The US might have been happy to be left alone to crush Japan, as there's no real springboard to take on the Germans in Europe anymore (With the Gibraltar and Suez now in German hands). Btw - no allies in Europe no more.
6. No invasion of Norway. With UK out, the campaign against Yugoslavia and Greece is not an issue. Barbarossa can start in early May 41 with the full, combined force of the Wehrmacht. Yugoslavia (without the coup) might have joined Hungary, Slovakia, Rumania, and Bulgaria.7. Pressure on Turkey and Spain to enter or support the Axis more (might have brought the Italian fleet to the Black sea). This might be less difficult with the German total victory in the West. Sweden and Persia might also tend to support the Germans at such a height of victorious campaigns.
8. Ending/shutting up Adolf in 1942 (leaving the generals to do their job).
9. No subs, V1&2's, Atlantic Wall, AA or Western fighter screen.
10. Welcome the many Soviet volunteers by creating "Liberation army of the Ukraine", etc. Avoid cruelty toward civilians and POWs.
11. No Holocaust! The dissent made by this, and the moral implications among righteous men avoided. More trains available to supply the front. Talented people spared. -Humanity and historical honor intact.
12. Emphasize on general chivalric or civilized warfare to all soldiers. More Rommel, Manstein and Kesselring. Less Himmler, Heydrich and Göring (so to speak). This might lessen the brutality at the front, making the Russians less vengeful or hesitant to surrender.
13. No political prestige interference in the Oberkommando, Stalingrad's avoided (encircle cities).
14. USSR given reasonable conditions to surrender, but must give up Moscow, Leningrad, much of heavy industry and weapons.


....................................are you serius?

[Lokos]

14. USSR given reasonable conditions to surrender, but must give up Moscow, Leningrad, much of heavy industry and weapons.

What would unreasonable conditions be, then? The Soviet Union's two largest and most developed cities, presumably the Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic States with their heavy industry - all a part of a 'reasonable' peace offer?

Lokos

[RomanS]

What would unreasonable conditions be, then? The Soviet Union's two largest and most developed cities, presumably the Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic States with their heavy industry - all a part of a 'reasonable' peace offer?

Lokos

Hence me, laughing...

3 out of 4 German soldiers were killed on East Front, I dont see Germany wining against Russia even if they made peace with Western europe.

[Freibier]

Hence me, laughing...

3 our of 4 German soldiers were killed on East Front, I dont see Germany wining against Russia even if they made peace with Western europe.
no they weren't and if the stupid italians didn't get stuck so badly in ze balkans, Barbarossa would've started much earlier and winter wouldn't have saved moscow

[PeterG]

Hence me, laughing...

3 our of 4 German soldiers were killed on East Front, I dont see Germany wining against Russia even if they made peace with Western europe.

Even if Germany had 'won' - how on earth to control the occupied territories? It would have been the mother of all insurgencies: The germans would have suffered horrendous losses, and the logistical problems would be impossible to overcome. Think of the mindboggling size of the USSR.

[pacifist]

Assassination of Hitler before the war would have helped.

[zad]

Assassination of Hitler before the war would have helped.

Were there any other bastard with enought charisma to fill the gap? convencing your nation that invade the rest of the world is a cool idea must not be easy....

[Lokos]

no they weren't and if the stupid italians didn't get stuck so badly in ze balkans, Barbarossa would've started much earlier and winter wouldn't have saved moscow

Hitler committed in the Balkans not due to Italian misadventures in Albania and Greece, but because of a pro-Allies military coup in Yugoslavia...

And it was the raspu****a that slowed down the progress of the Wehrmacht, not the winter. Though anyone claiming that the weather was solely - or even mostly - responsible for the failure of Typhoon is beset by delusion. Soviet armies had wrought enormous damage on the Wehrmacht during the phase of active operations - regardless of the much worse damage they suffered themselves.

Consider: It is not as if the German general staff was not aware of the difficulties of weather and campaigning terrain across the central Soviet Union. Yet they still believed the campaign was already won, well into August-September. It was Soviet resistance, not the weather, that put paid to that belief.

Lokos

[andrew_rsa]

9. No subs, V1&2's, Atlantic Wall, AA or Western fighter screen.

how can you possibly believe germany would have won the war without their subs?

having the wolfpacks is one of the reasons that germany held out for so long in the second world war.. because it took so long to resupply britain and build up a strong enough invasion force

[TR1]

no they weren't and if the stupid italians didn't get stuck so badly in ze balkans, Barbarossa would've started much earlier and winter wouldn't have saved moscow
haven't heard that before from a German.:roll:

[Lienad]

You know...i always wonder what it would be like if America was Occupied by another Country. imagine an American Insurgency.

[gaijinsamurai]

You know...i always wonder what it would be like if America was Occupied by another Country. imagine an American Insurgency.

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Johnny_H02]

You know...i always wonder what it would be like if America was Occupied by another Country. imagine an American Insurgency.

Yeah what would that of looked like ....... *cue hazy screen and harp strings *

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2729/revolutionzy2.jpg

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1120/americanrevolutionyt5.jpg

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

America was never occupied by a foreign power since it could be argued that the war of 1812 was a continuation of the American Revolution.

In other words. The so called patriots were rebellious scum and any occupation of the colonies was simply the restoration of law and order by the true sovereign authority.

[Mu-Meson]

The ONLY way Germany might have won would be if it got nukes first, and used them repeatedly. The disparity in total resources means that Germany could never have won a conventional war.

[RomanS]

The ONLY way Germany might have won would be if it got nukes first, and used them repeatedly. The disparity in total resources means that Germany could never have won a conventional war.
Most of the western USSR was in ruins, what would nukes do?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Plus Germany it's likely Germany would not have used them. They didn't use their vast stocks of chemical weapons after all.

[ren0312]

Germany would have taken Moscow by September if Hitler had listened to von Manstein's advice and went straight for Moscow after capturing Smolensk and had not proceeded with his massive encirclements around Kiev.

[ren0312]

Hence me, laughing...

3 out of 4 German soldiers were killed on East Front, I dont see Germany wining against Russia even if they made peace with Western europe.

The last chance for Germany to win in the Ost Front was "Case Blue" IMO.

[kawaiku]

Okay, say they didn't invade the USSR and went for the UK and or the Suez Canal instead?

[Pleonasm]

Germany would have taken Moscow by September if Hitler had listened to von Manstein's advice and went straight for Moscow after capturing Smolensk and had not proceeded with his massive encirclements around Kiev.Yeah, how silly of him. He should have left numerous Soviet armies untouched right beneath a not too well guarded flank. Sounds reasonable.

[c-eight]

And it was the raspu****a that slowed down the progress of the Wehrmacht, not the winter. Though anyone claiming that the weather was solely - or even mostly - responsible for the failure of Typhoon is beset by delusion. Soviet armies had wrought enormous damage on the Wehrmacht during the phase of active operations - regardless of the much worse damage they suffered themselves.

Lokos

Less average daily casualities German side up to end December 1942 than during the battle of France in spite the 10000 tanks and the thousands of everything else the Russian had initialy.

[CMNot]

raspu****a

Am I right in thinking this is the 'thaw' for want of a better word...the snow melting etc.

The winter was rough in that it slowed German progress. Yet not as bad as when the mud came. And it only got worse on top of that when they also had to start fighting. Logistics were a nightmare.

As for the topic as a whole...christ only knows where one starts. You could fill 50k words with just the mistakes of the Western Allies and/or Stavka without even turning an eye on the great despot himself.

[Billy No Mates]

Okay, say they didn't invade the USSR and went for the UK and or the Suez Canal instead?

There wouldn't of been a lot of mileage in going for the UK the Germans simply lacked the naval power to defeat or hold of the home fleet long enough to force a channel crossing .
Taking the Suez canal and would of been a major blow but we still could of linked up with our Empire by going the long way round,i suppose pushing on from there and securing the ME oil supply would of been very handy to the Axis .

[CMNot]

They may have lacked the naval power, but this could have been redressed if it was the sole concern of Hitler (i.e. if he had let the Russians be). The Germans had the industrial output and technical capacity to enlarge what was to begin with anything but a modest navy. Not to mention various tactics the Luftwaffe could have adopted as opposed to bombing cities (i.e. the few docks large enough to deplane a British fleet). Plus, the Germans with a view to invasion could have redirected the U-Boats from merchant shipping to actively seeking British warships - which remained highly susceptible to the threat in the early years prior to advanced radar and long-range ASW aircraft patrols.

What the Germans could gain from taking Britain would have been negligible, namely to effectively knock out the Commonwealth from the war. It would have been a costly exercise though - the most he could gain would be unhindered access to the Atlantic and Britain's industry such as it was in the 1940s. The latter being smaller by '40-'41 than Germany's industrial output. Good coal reserves, not a hell of a lot else. To use the industrial capacity he now had would mean needing access to raw materials, the source of which for the British was by and large the empire and trade; both routes which would have been shut to Hitler. So he would still need access to raw materials, most likely place being east, and to use these to utilise newly captured British industry would have meant comically shipping them right past or beneath the German industrial heartland.

Britain could have been contained to the island (it is highly unlikely that British forces at any point would have been capable of launching an invasion capable of both landing and breakout). Hitler came unstuck vis-a-vis Britain with Pearl Harbour and his alliance to the Japanese - Churchill finally after endless hours of lobbying got FDR to commit American forces to Europe. Once Hitler had the two great behemoths of the world gunning for him, I am afraid it was a case of when, no longer if.

Still way too many "what if's". We could have endless argument exploring the details of what did take place without hypothesising on what did not take place.

[Lokos]

Less average daily casualities German side up to end December 1942 than during the battle of France in spite the 10000 tanks and the thousands of everything else the Russian had initialy.

From 22.6.1941 until 31.12.1941 the Germans suffered 302,495 permanent losses in the East.

Monthly:

June 1941 25.000
July 1941 63.099
Aug 1941 46.066
Sep 1941 51.033
Oct 1941 41.099
Nov 1941 36.000
Dec 1941 40.198

In active operations against France (and the British forces in France) the Germans suffered an estimated 45,000 permanent losses.

The roughly 45 day campaign (10 May - 25 June) cost the Wehrmacht around one thousand permanent losses a day. The six month campaign in the East (being generous with time, let's say 180 days, though there aren't 180 days between 22.6.1941 and 31.12.1941), cost the Germans somewhere in the vicinity of 1,680 permanent losses a day.

The year 1942 somewhat lowers the average monthly losses (though they are still well above a thousand a day, the 1942 permanent losses being 506,815). Though in this case, clearly, we're not counting the smashed armies of the Romanians and the Italians in November/December 1942.

***

The only reason why I bothered conducting this idiotic comparison is because you had the cheek to make it.

My source for German losses is Rudiger Overmans' work on the topic.

As for what the Soviets 'had initially', I suggest you do some further reading on this forum, where that horse was beaten to death a long time ago...

Lokos

[Mastermind]

A book of infinite number of of pages could be written on this subject..."what if?"

However, the European WWI and II experience was a comedy of errors fate and history often curse nations with. First, it is highly unlikly Germany could have won either war. As soon as Germany became engaged with a global conflict, the end was inevitable considering the resulting and predictable geopolitical alignments and geographic position of Germany.

There were some golden opportunities missed by Germany in both wars. Germany probably had a few chances to sue for peace on much more favorable terms than she ultimately was forced to accept in WWI. The outrageous and vile demands placed by the victors in 1918, gave good reason to predict an eventual resumption of hostilities without much room for error.

As for Germany's possibilities of actually "Winning" the war in total, I think that potential outcome was remote. Germany completely missed her chance for a reasonably good outcome when France surrendered. although I seriously doubt Britian would have sued for peace, Germany could have approaced Britian with a non-aggression agreement that might have included an offer to return French autonomy, so long as France also agreed to stand down on the German border and to accept German inspectors for assurance. This probably would have worked to Germanies benefit. If Germany had been successful in normalizing relations with Britian and France and then faced Russia one on one, I think the support to Russia from both britian and the USA could have been greatly reduced or even possibly eliminated altogether. I suspect trade instincts would have kicked in with Britian and France strongly selling Germany all of her most essential war supplies. It should not be forgotten that the Russian experiment was still looked upon with grave suspicion by the western powers and I personally don't think it is inconcievable that the europeans and the Americans would have looked unfavorably at the fall of the Stalin regime.

As for Germany having trouble managing her new conquered territories, I don't think there would have been very much difficulty in Russia for German administrators to develop a kind of mini-"Marshall" plan in such a terribly economically retarded state as was Russia at the time. Germany certainly had the military strength to suppress any partisan pockets of resistance. I belive that once the Stalinist government collapsed and the German wonderboys came in, if they had managed to suppress their own instincts toward cruelty and mass social subjugation, they might have actually pulled it off.

It is interesting to wonder abut the changes we might have experienced with a strong and globally empowered Germanic empire instead of a Soviet empire. We probalby would have fought the Japanese and thus would have benefited from war time technological advances. With a massive victorious and technologically advanced and nuclear powered German empire covering a fifth of the world as a competitor, we would have very likely been engaged in some sort of cold war with the Germans similar to the one we did experience with the USSR.

[Rittmester]

What would unreasonable conditions be, then? The Soviet Union's two largest and most developed cities, presumably the Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic States with their heavy industry - all a part of a 'reasonable' peace offer?

Lokos

Well, Germany would have to pacify a vengeful USSR somehow, and as the industrial centers are the backbone of military capability, I presume the loss of those cities would be like losing the right hand. Aspirations for a comeback would take decades.

This is a "major victory scenario", meaning the total collapse of the Red Army at some point. With fewer gains, and an environment for conditional surrender, I guess the "liberation" of Karelia and the Western Soviet Republics would do. -Meaning them being used as puppet states and buffer zones. A loss of Belarus and the Ukraine might have reduced the remaining Russian resources sufficiently to engage in a rematch during the 50ies.

But I'm interested to hear your view on what the Soviet might have given up in surrender.

And as for you that say that it was impossible to beat the USSR in 1941.. Well, that makes no sence to me. Had the events in my initial post (or as Mastermind here describe) happened; the Axis would be much more up to the challenge. Russia has lost many wars, and doesn't possess unlimited manpower or resources. Beating the USSR, doesn't mean you have to march to Vladivostok. A loss of most large cities (and capitol) will cripple any country.

[KoTeMoRe]

Well, Germany would have to pacify a vengeful USSR somehow, and as the industrial centers are the backbone of military capability, I presume the loss of those cities would be like losing the right hand. Aspirations for a comeback would take decades.

This is a "major victory scenario", meaning the total collapse of the Red Army at some point. With fewer gains, and an environment for conditional surrender, I guess the "liberation" of Karelia and the Western Soviet Republics would do. -Meaning them being used as puppet states and buffer zones. A loss of Belarus and the Ukraine might have reduced the remaining Russian resources sufficiently to engage in a rematch during the 50ies.

But I'm interested to hear your view on what the Soviet might have given up in surrender.

And as for you that say that it was impossible to beat the USSR in 1941.. Well, that makes no sence to me. Had the events in my initial post (or as Mastermind here describe) happened; the Axis would be much more up to the challenge. Russia has lost many wars, and doesn't possess unlimited manpower or resources. Beating the USSR, doesn't mean you have to march to Vladivostok. A loss of most large cities (and capitol) will cripple any country.



Lokos is of the total disaster school of thought. I just made a search as he suggested and found out,that the man (Lokos) considers that the RKKA was indeed destroyed during Barbarossa and it took promethean efforts to draft and relocate the necessary reinforcements.

Although I do not share his views he's got a point. But you fail to see something else, taking moscow would be of no use if there's nothing left there. As for Russia, last time, it was the USSR.

I'd like to point out the Bullet genocide that took place during late 41 mid 1943. Killing Jews, Soviets and Komissars had a psychological impact that litterally geared up mentally around 200 million people to a fight to death.

That said with Soviet troops in the Far East still unhurt, you had to go to Vladivostok. The said troops would eventually kick the germans out of Moscow.

Cheers.

[Kilgor]

Okay, say they didn't invade the USSR and went for the UK and or the Suez Canal instead?

War between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union was inevitable.

Hitler did not have a sizeable amphibious capability and the plans for sealion where adhoc and half hearted at best. The type of warfare was not to his liking, "I am a hero on land, but a coward at sea", and also mentioning he never slept when his capital ships were out at sea. Sealion was continuously scaled down, and many senior leaders such as Adolf Galland did not consider the plan genuine, more a threat.


Could he have won ww2 ? Define "Won" ? Occupation of France, the low countries, Balkans, Scandinavia, and the soviet Union to the Ural mountains, treaty with the UK, and the US ?
Its certainly possible, but in the long run I doubt how he could have ever held on to those territories.

Allied victory over the Third Reich was certainly no sure event, especially for the Soviets.

[Hornblower]

Well...

Germany was never in the position to win that war as we were simply lacking the recources, or dominions to get those from.
Establishing a second front without having the recources for a longer campaign was sheer suizide. The Wehrmacht had to rely on it´s advanced tactics and superiour equipment (until this was matched by the allies).
I think the only way to "success" would have been to focus on one frontier first and cutt off the UK from their dominions (not even concidering to declare war on the US) in the first place. Then bring the middle east under control, trough Balkans Turkey, Irak, Egypt (suez channel) - forcing spain to allow german troops to gain control over gibraltar. Rather than focussing on the SEELÖWE Operation. Without the dominion support, the Uk would have been in trouble. Then a concentrated airborne Operation like MERKUR on british mainland would have become a possible scenario.
To catch two or three airfields in south england could have been enough to establish a strong bridgehead (as MERKUR proved) and also to have enough refuling possiblities for the fighterplanes and Stukas.

However I´m more than happy that it turned out all differntly.

My 5 cents

[Lienad]

Yeah what would that of looked like ....... *cue hazy screen and harp strings *

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2729/revolutionzy2.jpg

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1120/americanrevolutionyt5.jpg


im talking about Modern day occupation. lol...Americans putting IEDs on the road. Oh you gotta love Guerrilla Warfare rofl

[KoTeMoRe]

A book of infinite number of of pages could be written on this subject..."what if?"

However, the European WWI and II experience was a comedy of errors fate and history often curse nations with. First, it is highly unlikly Germany could have won either war. As soon as Germany became engaged with a global conflict, the end was inevitable considering the resulting and predictable geopolitical alignments and geographic position of Germany.

There were some golden opportunities missed by Germany in both wars. Germany probably had a few chances to sue for peace on much more favorable terms than she ultimately was forced to accept in WWI. The outrageous and vile demands placed by the victors in 1918, gave good reason to predict an eventual resumption of hostilities without much room for error.

As for Germany's possibilities of actually "Winning" the war in total, I think that potential outcome was remote. Germany completely missed her chance for a reasonably good outcome when France surrendered. although I seriously doubt Britian would have sued for peace, Germany could have approaced Britian with a non-aggression agreement that might have included an offer to return French autonomy, so long as France also agreed to stand down on the German border and to accept German inspectors for assurance. This probably would have worked to Germanies benefit. If Germany had been successful in normalizing relations with Britian and France and then faced Russia one on one, I think the support to Russia from both britian and the USA could have been greatly reduced or even possibly eliminated altogether. I suspect trade instincts would have kicked in with Britian and France strongly selling Germany all of her most essential war supplies. It should not be forgotten that the Russian experiment was still looked upon with grave suspicion by the western powers and I personally don't think it is inconcievable that the europeans and the Americans would have looked unfavorably at the fall of the Stalin regime.




As for Germany having trouble managing her new conquered territories, I don't think there would have been very much difficulty in Russia for German administrators to develop a kind of mini-"Marshall" plan in such a terribly economically retarded state as was Russia at the time. Germany certainly had the military strength to suppress any partisan pockets of resistance. I belive that once the Stalinist government collapsed and the German wonderboys came in, if they had managed to suppress their own instincts toward cruelty and mass social subjugation, they might have actually pulled it off.

It is interesting to wonder abut the changes we might have experienced with a strong and globally empowered Germanic empire instead of a Soviet empire. We probalby would have fought the Japanese and thus would have benefited from war time technological advances. With a massive victorious and technologically advanced and nuclear powered German empire covering a fifth of the world as a competitor, we would have very likely been engaged in some sort of cold war with the Germans similar to the one we did experience with the USSR.


With racial lines on their constitution Mastermind you sure blasted me on this one. Leben's Raum any one. I think all of you are evacuating the political aspect of this war (apart from Kilgor). The western flank of the USSR was to be subjected to a massive plundering in the form of Drang nach Osten with relocation of Volk settlers.

Oh and on the retarded state...the Soviet Union pulled off thte first artificial satellite with 30's technology and least valuable german blueprints 12 years after having its European part devastated. We should all lay off our cliches and anachronisms and let this thread die.

With if's my aunt would be my uncle.

[Soldat Inconnu]

This is the only way Germans could won that war in Euro-Asia...

1. Hitler wasn't the leader. (only bad decisions in war were made by him, so good thing he was there for the end cause he destroyed every solid military plan to hold the Alias back)
2. Nazis didn't kill all those people for nothing. (Jews, Gipsy's, Romanians, Slavic's and all other groups and individuals they killed they could use to build up they army even more and faster, Romanians for instance would fight Russians harder than Germans thats a fact and so many other examples)
3. Without Hitler and Nazis there wouldn't be a war in first place so there is no way that 3rd Reich would won that war with that kind of leadership.

Discussion over.
Criminals and psychopaths can't lead any country into anything good, so many examples today. Just think about it. p-)

[KoTeMoRe]

This is the only way Germans could won that war in Euro-Asia...

1. Hitler wasn't the leader. (only bad decisions in war were made by him, so good thing he was there for the end cause he destroyed every solid military plan to hold the Alias back)
2. Nazis didn't kill all those people for nothing. (Jews, Gipsy's, Romanians, Slavic's and all other groups and individuals they killed they could use to build up they army even more and faster, Romanians for instance would fight Russians harder than Germans thats a fact and so many other examples)
3. Without Hitler and Nazis there wouldn't be a war in first place so there is no way that 3rd Reich would won that war with that kind of leadership.

Discussion over.
Criminals and psychopaths can't lead any country into anything good, so many examples today. Just think about it. p-)

Hat's off proffessor great deal of fine savoir you distilled on us. I was going to kill the thread but then you appeared and finished it.

rofl

[Lokos]

Romanians for instance would fight Russians harder than Germans

Is that what happened in November of 1942? Or in Odessa, during 1941?


I don't think there would have been very much difficulty in Russia for German administrators to develop a kind of mini-"Marshall" plan in such a terribly economically retarded state as was Russia at the time

That 'economically retarded' state outproduced Germany in almost every category of war materiel from 1942 onwards. As for the 'Marshall Plan' you envisage, it never would have happened. Actual German plans for post-war Russia and the other territories of the Soviet Union were based on expulsion of a certain proportion of undesirables (Slavs, for the most part) and the exploitation of the rest (tantamount to slave labour)...


Well, Germany would have to pacify a vengeful USSR somehow, and as the industrial centers are the backbone of military capability, I presume the loss of those cities would be like losing the right hand.

And why would the Soviets see that as a reasonable offer, then? I say that's more like a 'let's you and I fight to the death' sort of offer.


Germany was never in the position to win that war as we were simply lacking the recources

That's nonsense. Germany had continental Europe to draw upon for resources - the potential was immense. That she was too inefficient to do so effectively until 1944 does nothing to invalidate that fact.


(only bad decisions in war were made by him, so good thing he was there for the end cause he destroyed every solid military plan to hold the Alias back)


Yes, indeed? Like, for example, his order to hedgehog the retreating formations of the AGC in December 1941? This order likely prevented a much larger collapse, and could have been strategically disastrous for the Germans. Certainly, Hitler made dubious military decisions on a fairly regular basis. But he was no buffoon. He acted on advice from his Army General Staff and the General Staff of the OKH, for the most part. The Stalingrad debacle was as much the fault of Goering's utter foolishness as it was Hitler's inability to see the true gravity of the situation.


Then a concentrated airborne Operation like MERKUR on british mainland would have become a possible scenario.
To catch two or three airfields in south england could have been enough to establish a strong bridgehead (as MERKUR proved) and also to have enough refuling possiblities for the fighterplanes and Stukas.

Could you take a look at the Battle of Crete, see what happened to the FJ that was dropped there, and the transport forces that dropped them there, tie that in to a potentially similar operation against England under the umbrella of her fighter airforces and AA emplacements and get back to me with your assessment of the feasibility of this operation?

My opinion is that it would be an unmitigated disaster. But I'd like to hear yours...

Lokos

[Mastermind]

Yeah...economically retared is right. Russia was propped up by massive aid from the western nations. There would have been a much more difficult reconstruction and relocation of the war factories without the American and British machine tools, transport systems and vital war materials. Russia was short of just about everything. As you suggest in your post later, Germany had a huge resource pool to draw from in the conquered territories. I must add, much of that territory was quite sympathetic to the German effort and was glad to supply material and manufacturing prowess....France included. So, as we have speculated, IF Germany had not had to drain manpower and material to the western front, by defining a non-aggression agreement with Britian and France, there is every likly hood, there would not have been such a huge influx of war material from the west to Russia. The effect would have been a double punch to Russia...no help from the west and a reinvigorated German war machine.

Of course, this is predicated on the assumption as has been mentiond as another clause in the "Could Germany have won" debate...Hitler lets the Generals win. His insistance on diversion of the Army Groups toward Moscow was utterly absurd. Poor planning, improper expectations (underestimating the enemy) and his reliance on 'Mystical or divine interventions" doomed the effort. It may be possible, without Hitler's interventions and radical changes in an otherwise adequate plan, as Barbarossa was, an enhanced German force could have so effectivly disorganized the Russian forces, that Stalin would have been effectivly neutralized as a viable war opponent.

I doubt, such speculation does any real good other than mental masturbation. But, there is some respectable chance that with only a few, though radical (and based on the personalities involved, highly unlikely), changes in events, the Germans could have at the least developed the war into an outcome something better than utter annihilation.

[Rittmester]

Yeah...economically retared is right. Russia was propped up by massive aid from the western nations. There would have been a much more difficult reconstruction and relocation of the war factories without the American and British machine tools, transport systems and vital war materials. Russia was short of just about everything. As you suggest in your post later, Germany had a huge resource pool to draw from in the conquered territories. I must add, much of that territory was quite sympathetic to the German effort and was glad to supply material and manufacturing prowess....France included. So, as we have speculated, IF Germany had not had to drain manpower and material to the western front, by defining a non-aggression agreement with Britian and France, there is every likly hood, there would not have been such a huge influx of war material from the west to Russia. The effect would have been a double punch to Russia...no help from the west and a reinvigorated German war machine.

Of course, this is predicated on the assumption as has been mentiond as another clause in the "Could Germany have won" debate...Hitler lets the Generals win. His insistance on diversion of the Army Groups toward Moscow was utterly absurd. Poor planning, improper expectations (underestimating the enemy) and his reliance on 'Mystical or divine interventions" doomed the effort. It may be possible, without Hitler's interventions and radical changes in an otherwise adequate plan, as Barbarossa was, an enhanced German force could have so effectivly disorganized the Russian forces, that Stalin would have been effectivly neutralized as a viable war opponent.

I doubt, such speculation does any real good other than mental masturbation. But, there is some respectable chance that with only a few, though radical (and based on the personalities involved, highly unlikely), changes in events, the Germans could have at the least developed the war into an outcome something better than utter annihilation.

x2

Further, to those that insists a Sealion was impossible; The scenario put up in my first post involves an implementation of the naval H(Z)-plan.

This would in deed match the Home Fleet, as the Italian fleet would tie up the Medit fleet. Air supreiority over the channel would make it very bloody for the English to intercept an invasion. Fallschirmjägers would also be used of course. Also, with "total war"declared earlier, and the arms industry at 100% from 39, there would be a quite lot more firepower in the Wehrmact by the following year, not to mention 41.

An illustration of the Z-plan:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_bismarck.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/battleships/bismarck/index.html)
Bismarck Laid down: Blohm & Voß Hamburg, 01.07.1936
Launched: 14.02.1939
Commissioned: 24.08.1940
Fate: sunk 27.05.1941 (North Atlantic)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_tirpitz.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/battleships/tirpitz/index.html)
Tirpitz Laid down: Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven 02.11.1936
Launched: 01.04.1939
Commissioned: 25.02.1941
Fate: sunk 12.11.1944 (Norway)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_gneisenau.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/battleships/gneisenau/index.html)
Gneisenau Laid down: Deutsche Werke Kiel, 06.05.1935
Launched: 08.12.1936
Commissioned: 21.05.1938
Fate: sunk as a blockade ship March 1945 (Gotenhafen /Gdynia)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_scharnhorst.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/battleships/scharnhorst/index.html)
Scharnhorst Laid down: Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven, 15.06.1935
Launched: 03.10.1936
Commissioned: 07.01.1939
Fate: sunk 25.12.1943 (North Cape)

http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_battleshiph.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/battleships/schlachtschiffh/index.html)
Schlachtschiff H Laid down: Blohm & Voss Hamburg, 15.07.1939
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate: incomplete ship scrapped 25.11.1941
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_battleshiph.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/battleships/schlachtschiffj/index.html)
Schlachtschiff J Laid down: Deschimag Bremen 01.09.1939
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate: incomplete ship scrapped 25.11.1941
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_battleshiph.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/battleships/schlachtschiffk/index.html)
Schlachtschiff K Laid down: Deutsche Werke Kiel, ordered 25.05.1939
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate: order cancelled summer 1939
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_battleshiph.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/battleships/schlachtschiffl/index.html)
Schlachtschiff L Laid down: Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhlemshaven (planned)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_battleshiph.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/battleships/schlachtschiffm/index.html)
Schlachtschiff M Laid down: Blohm & Voss Hamburg (order given Jul 1939)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate: order cancelled 10.10.1939
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_battleshiph.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/battleships/schlachtschiffn/index.html)
Schlachtschiff N Laid down: Deschimag Bremen (order given summer 1939)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate: order cancelled 10.10.1939

http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_grafzeppelin.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/carrier/grafzeppelin/index.html)
Graf Zeppelin Laid down: Deutsche Werke Kiel, 28.12.1936
Launched: 08.12.1938
Commissioned:
Fate: sunk 16.08.1947 (Baltic Sea)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_grafzeppelin.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/carrier/flugzeugtragerb/index.html)
Flugzeugträger B Laid down: Germaniawerft Kiel, 1938
Launched: 01.07.1940 (planned)
Commissioned:
Fate: incomplete ship scrapped 28.02.1940

http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_cvl.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/carrier/cvl/index.html)
Kleiner Flugzeugträger (CVL) Kleiner Flugzeugträger (CVL) http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_degrasse.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/carrier/degrasse/index.html)
De Grasse (Hilfsflugzeugträger II) Laid down: 1938 - 1956
Launched: 11.09.1946
Commissioned: 03.09.1956 (as cruiser)
Fate: scrapped 1976
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_europa.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/carrier/europa/index.html)
Europa Laid down: Blohm & Voss Hamburg, 1927
Launched: 16.08.1928
Commissioned: 26.03.1929 (as passenger ship)
Fate: scrapped 1962
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_gneisenaucv.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/carrier/gneisenau/index.html)
Gneisenau Laid down: AG Weser Bremen, 1934
Launched: 17.05.1935
Commissioned: 03.01.1936 (as passenger ship)
Fate: sunk on 02.05.1943
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_potsdam.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/carrier/potsdam/index.html)
Potsdam Laid down: Blohm & Voss Hamburg, 1934
Launched: 16.01.1935
Commissioned: 27.06.1936 (as passenger ship)
Fate: scrapped 1976
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_seydlitzcvl.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/carrier/seydlitzcvl/index.html)
Seydlitz Laid down: Deschimag Bremen, 12.12.1936
Launched: 19.01.1939
Commissioned:
Fate: scrapped after 1947

http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_a2.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/flugdeckkreuzer/a2/index.html)
Grossflugzeugkreuzer A II Laid down: Design 09.04.1942
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_a3.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/flugdeckkreuzer/a3/index.html)
Grossflugzeugkreuzer A III Laid down: Design 14.04.1942
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_a4.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/flugdeckkreuzer/a4/index.html)
Grossflugzeugkreuzer A IV Laid down: Design 15.04.1942
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_a2a.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/flugdeckkreuzer/a2a/index.html)
Grossflugzeugkreuzer A IIa Laid down: Design 01.05.1942
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_e4.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/flugdeckkreuzer/e4/index.html)
Flugdeckkreuzer E IV Flugdeckkreuzer E IV http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_e5.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/flugdeckkreuzer/e5/index.html)
Flugdeckkreuzer E V Flugdeckkreuzer E V
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_admiralgrafspee.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/panzerschiffe/admiralgrafspee/index.html)
Admiral Graf Spee Laid down: Reichsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven, 01.10.1932
Launched: 30.06.1934
Commissioned: 06.01.1936
Fate: scuttled 17.12.1939 (La Plate estuary)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_admiralscheer.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/panzerschiffe/admiralscheer/index.html)
Admiral Scheer Laid down: Reichsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven, 25.06.1931
Launched: 01.04.1933
Commissioned: 12.11.1934
Fate: sunk by bombs 9-10.04.1945 (Kiel)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_deutschland.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/panzerschiffe/deutschland/index.html)
Deutschland / Lützow Laid down: Deutsche Werke Kiel, 05.02.1929
Launched: 19.05.1931
Commissioned: 01.04.1933
Fate: blown up 04.05.1945 (Swinemünde)

http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_admiralhipper.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/heavycruiser/admiralhipper/index.html)
Admiral Hipper Laid down: Blohm & Voß Hamburg, 06.07.1935
Launched: 06.02.1937
Commissioned: 29.04.1939
Fate: blown up 03.05.1945 (Kiel Shipyard)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_blucher.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/heavycruiser/blucher/index.html)
Blücher Laid down: Deutsche Werke Kiel, 15.08.1935
Launched: 08.06.1937
Commissioned: 20.09.1939
Fate: sunk 09.04.1940 (Oslo Fjord)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_prinzeugen.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/heavycruiser/prinzeugen/index.html)
Prinz Eugen Laid down: Germaniawerft Kiel, 23.04.1936
Launched: 22.08.1938
Commissioned: 01.08.1940
Fate: sunk summer 1946 (Kwajalein-Atoll)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_seydlitz.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/heavycruiser/seydlitz/index.html)
Seydlitz Laid down: Deschimag Bremen, 29.12.1936
Launched: 19.01.1939
Commissioned:
Fate: blown up 10.04.1945 (Königsberg)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_lutzow.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/heavycruiser/lutzow/index.html)
Lützow Laid down: Deschimag Bremen, 02.08.1937
Launched: 01.07.1939
Commissioned:
Fate: scrapped in the 1950s (Russia)

http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_schlachtkreuzero.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/battlecruisers/schlachtkreuzero/index.html)
Schlachtkreuzer O Laid down: Deutsche Werke Kiel (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_schlachtkreuzero.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/battlecruisers/schlachtkreuzerp/index.html)
Schlachtkreuzer P Laid down: Kriegsmarienweft Wilhlemshaven (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_schlachtkreuzero.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/battlecruisers/schlachtkreuzerq/index.html)
Schlachtkreuzer Q Laid down: Germaniawerft Kiel (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:

http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerp1.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp1/index.html)
Kreuzer P1 Laid down: Deutsche Werke Kiel, 01.05.1940 (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerp1.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp2/index.html)
Kreuzer P2 Laid down: Blohm & Voß Hamburg, 01.05.1940 (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerp1.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp3/index.html)
Kreuzer P3 Laid down: Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelemshaven, 01.07.1940 (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerp1.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp4/index.html)
Kreuzer P4 Laid down: Howaldtswerke Kiel, 01.07.1940 (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerp1.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp5/index.html)
Kreuzer P5 Laid down: Blohm & Voß Hamburg, 01.05.1942 (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerp1.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp6/index.html)
Kreuzer P6 Laid down: Germaniawerft Kiel, 01.05.1942 (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerp1.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp7/index.html)
Kreuzer P7 Laid down: Deutsche Werke Kiel, 01.05.1942 (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerp1.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp8/index.html)
Kreuzer P8 Laid down: Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhlemshaven, 01.05.1942 (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerp1.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp9/index.html)
Kreuzer P9 Laid down: Blohm & Voß Hamburg, 01.05.1944 (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerp1.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp10/index.html)
Kreuzer P10 Laid down: Deschimag Bremen, 01.05.1944 (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerp1.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp11/index.html)
Kreuzer P11 Laid down: Blohm & Voß Hamburg, 01.05.1944 (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerp1.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp12/index.html)
Kreuzer P12 Laid down: Germaniawerft Kiel, 01.05.1944 (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:

http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerm.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/cruiser/kreuzerm/index.html)
Kreuzer M Laid down: Deutsche Werke Kiel, 01.11.1938
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate: construction stopped 19.09.1939, used material scrapped
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerm.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/cruiser/kreuzern/index.html)
Kreuzer N Laid down: Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhlemshaven, 1938
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate: construction stopped 21.09.1939, used material scrapped
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerm.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/cruiser/kreuzero/index.html)
Kreuzer O Laid down: Germaniawerft Kiel (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerm.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/cruiser/kreuzerp/index.html)
Kreuzer P Laid down: Germaniawerft Kiel (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerq.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/cruiser/kreuzerq/index.html)
Kreuzer Q Laid down: Schichau Danzig (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_kreuzerq.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/cruiser/kreuzerr/index.html)
Kreuzer R Laid down: Deutsche Werke Kiel (projected)
Launched:
Commissioned:
Fate:

http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_emden.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/lightcruiser/emden/index.html)
Emden Laid down: Reichsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven, 08.12.1921
Launched: 07.01.1925
Commissioned: 15.10.1925
Fate: Destroyed by explosions 03.04.1945 (Heikendorf Bay)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_konigsberg.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/lightcruiser/konigsberg/index.html)
Königsberg Laid down: Reichsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven, 12.04.1926
Launched: 26.03.1927
Commissioned: 17.04.1929
Fate: sunk by FAA bombers 10.04.1940 (Bergen)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_karlsruhe.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/lightcruiser/karlsruhe/index.html)
Karlsruhe Laid down: Deutsche Werke Kiel, 27.07.1926
Launched: 20.08.1927
Commissioned: 06.11.1929
Fate: sunk by Submarine 09.04.1940 (Kristiansand)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_koln.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/lightcruiser/koln/index.html)
Köln Laid down: Reichsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven, 07.08.1926
Launched: 25.05.1928
Commissioned: 15.01.1930
Fate: sunk by bombs 31.03.1945 (Wilhelmshaven)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_leipzig.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/lightcruiser/leipzig/index.html)
Leipzig Laid down: Marinewerft Wilhelmshaven, 18.04.1928
Launched: 18.10.1929
Commissioned: 08.10.1931
Fate: scuttled with gas ammo 16.12.1946 (North Sea)
http://www.german-navy.de/pics/kriegsmarine/t_nurnberg.gif (http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/lightcruiser/nurnberg/index.html)
Nürnberg Laid down: Deutsche Werke Kiel, 04.11.1933
Launched: 08.12.1934
Commissioned: 02.11.1935
Fate: scrapped 1961

[Mastermind]

With racial lines on their constitution Mastermind you sure blasted me on this one. Leben's Raum any one. I think all of you are evacuating the political aspect of this war (apart from Kilgor). The western flank of the USSR was to be subjected to a massive plundering in the form of Drang nach Osten with relocation of Volk settlers.

Oh and on the retarded state...the Soviet Union pulled off thte first artificial satellite with 30's technology and least valuable german blueprints 12 years after having its European part devastated. We should all lay off our cliches and anachronisms and let this thread die.

With if's my aunt would be my uncle.
I don't quite understand. This thread is a purely speculation thread and just about any line of thought is viable. It seems strange to me to see a personal level being assumed here. As I clearly said, "if the Germans could have suppressed their urge toward cruelty and subjugation..." I honestly don't think I had actually studied any posts by anyone else in here on that...that is just my pure specualtions....like my stated opinion that Russia at the time was existing within a retarded economy. It is my belief Stalin had already bankrupted the Sovied system with his pre-WWII outlandish five year plans...all of which had failed miserably. Russia was essentially working on a slave economy and food failures had devasted the agricultural system. I honestly believe the USSR would have collapsed, possibly under it's own frailty, without WWII Western aid.

Now, I will be the very first to admit, I may be wrong..for there is absolutely no way to prove my opinions are correct, or anyone else's for that matter, since history took the turns that factually it did. But, like everyone else, I am entitled to my opinions. If someone has a problem with that, honest, objective discourse is appreciated. I think that's what fair discussion is all about.

[Rittmester]

I don't quite understand. This thread is a purely speculation thread and just about any line of thought is viable. It seems strange to me to see a personal level being assumed here. As I clearly said, "if the Germans could have suppressed their urge toward cruelty and subjugation..." I honestly don't think I had actually studied any posts by anyone else in here on that...that is just my pure specualtions....like my stated opinion that Russia at the time was existing within a retarded economy. It is my belief Stalin had already bankrupted the Sovied system with his pre-WWII outlandish five year plans...all of which had failed miserably. Russia was essentially working on a slave economy and food failures had devasted the agricultural system. I honestly believe the USSR would have collapsed, possibly under it's own frailty, without WWII Western aid.

Now, I will be the very first to admit, I may be wrong..for there is absolutely no way to prove my opinions are correct, or anyone else's for that matter, since history took the turns that factually it did. But, like everyone else, I am entitled to my opinions. If someone has a problem with that, honest, objective discourse is appreciated. I think that's what fair discussion is all about.

There's different mindsets, ages and maturity levels amongst the debators here Mm; don't mind the juniors too much. The forum readers will side with you or this guy, based on their own level. I'm with you.

[c-eight]

From 22.6.1941 until 31.12.1941 the Germans suffered 302,495 permanent losses in the East.

Monthly:

June 1941 25.000
July 1941 63.099
Aug 1941 46.066
Sep 1941 51.033
Oct 1941 41.099
Nov 1941 36.000
Dec 1941 40.198

In active operations against France (and the British forces in France) the Germans suffered an estimated 45,000 permanent losses.

The roughly 45 day campaign (10 May - 25 June) cost the Wehrmacht around one thousand permanent losses a day. The six month campaign in the East (being generous with time, let's say 180 days, though there aren't 180 days between 22.6.1941 and 31.12.1941), cost the Germans somewhere in the vicinity of 1,680 permanent losses a day.

The year 1942 somewhat lowers the average monthly losses (though they are still well above a thousand a day, the 1942 permanent losses being 506,815). Though in this case, clearly, we're not counting the smashed armies of the Romanians and the Italians in November/December 1942.

***

The only reason why I bothered conducting this idiotic comparison is because you had the cheek to make it.

My source for German losses is Rudiger Overmans' work on the topic.

As for what the Soviets 'had initially', I suggest you do some further reading on this forum, where that horse was beaten to death a long time ago...

Lokos

No. You mixed 'deads' and casualities.

The Germans suffered 45000 deads in France in 1940 and 160000 casualities with the wounded.

I'll give you the number I have and the source tonight. I stand my point concerning the average daily losses from September to December. Not to make a 'stupid' comparison but to correct what is - IMO - a inacuracy from you.

... and change the tone please.

[stonecutter]

No. You mixed 'deads' and casualities.

The Germans suffered 45000 deads in France in 1940 and 160000 casualities with the wounded.

Lokos said 45000 "permanent losses", which for the most part means dead (not wounded).

[MoZo]

German would won if Finland wouldnt join the allies. :-D or maybe not.. :bash:

[toki]

I know people love what if threads.

But, even if 1000 things went differently, it would have ended in a similar way, sooner or later. It was the nature of the Third Reich. Expansion until self destruction. There is no single big if. German facism wasn't your "next door", south american type Junta facism. The nature of the beast dictated its end. The machine had to run on full throttle, far from slow rational solutions, if not it would have lost its ignition/identity. The ideology didn't leave another path. The Third Reich needed a total war - it was the core of it's ideology. "Vicious" circle.

[/THREAD]

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

Germany might have won if...they didn't lose

Needed more manpower, much like the Romans

[c-eight]

Lokos said 45000 "permanent losses", which for the most part means dead (not wounded).

The numbers I have:

From the 10th of May to the 25th of June the Battle of France cost to the French army 92,000 deads and 250,000 wounded so 342,000 out of combat.
Plus 2500 tanks and 900 planes destroyed.

During the same period of time (5 weeks) the German army suffer 160,000 soldiers out of combat (49,000 deads and 111,000 wounded)
Plus the loss of 1800 tanks and 1400 planes (more than during the 90 days of the Battle of England).

Other losses: UK 3500 KIA and 13600 wounded. Belgium: 7500 killed and 15900 WIA, the Dutch: 2900 KIA and 6900 WIA, Italy (allied with Germany): 6000 out of combat from the 10th to the 24th of june.

The Soviet army is strong of 158 divisions, 17500 tanks and 12000 planes when Barbarossa begin. From the 22th of June to the 9th of August 1941 (7 weeks) it lost 1000 km of ground, 3,500,000 soldiers (killed, wounded, prisoners, disapeared), 11000 tanks and 9500 planes.

German army align the 22th of June 1941 about as much mean in May 1940: 133 divisions (+20 in reserve), 3500 tanks, 7500 piece of artillery, and only 2000 planes.
The first 5 month of the war cost the 3rd Reich: 71000 killed, 148000 wounded, 1300 tanks, 660 planes. So about as much losses (more in material) as during the BAF on a shorter period of time.

source:
http://multimedia.fnac.com/multimedia/images_produits/ZoomPE/0/5/4/9782702134450.jpg

Again the aim isn't a 'stupid' comparison but either way one say that the German army was exhausted after the first month in Russia as Loko did, but in this case so it was after the battle of France, or you say that they were not but so it works in both cases too.

IMO it's between the two. The Germans could sustain the losses in both cases but were more 'tired' than most believe.

The main point was IMO the weather condition (the mud), experience, the time to become in 'bad mood' for the Russians and that the Russians had understood how Blitzkrieg work and how to counter it.

[Mastermind]

Excellent points c-8.

So many blunders by the Nazi regim early on were simply not conducive to winning at all.

I also liked the point above by Toki about the "full throttle" theory. I had not much thought of that aspect. But, find it quite plausible. The whirlwind of events that Hitler had started placed them into a war tempo that was carrying them along...like a raft in a rapidly moving stream...they were helpless to events around them and were quickly (post 1941) becoming reactors rather than real initiators of events.

ASide from the desperation takeover of Italy after the Italian armistice, the Germans never made another offensive move of any real size after 1941...the Belgium offensive in 1944 may be an exception...but was of such a hopeless "doomsday desperation" nature as to be excluded by me.

[TR1]

Excellent points c-8.

So many blunders by the Nazi regim early on were simply not conducive to winning at all.

I also liked the point above by Toki about the "full throttle" theory. I had not much thought of that aspect. But, find it quite plausible. The whirlwind of events that Hitler had started placed them into a war tempo that was carrying them along...like a raft in a rapidly moving stream...they were helpless to events around them and were quickly (post 1941) becoming reactors rather than real initiators of events.

ASide from the desperation takeover of Italy after the Italian armistice, the Germans never made another offensive move of any real size after 1941...the Belgium offensive in 1944 may be an exception...but was of such a hopeless "doomsday desperation" nature as to be excluded by me.

ummm what? There were plenty large scale offensive operations launched by the Germans (some with success) in the past 1941. The Summer offensive of 1942 in the East was on a huge scale, and achieved the penetration of Soviet defensive positions in considerable deapth....lake Balton counter-offensive comes to mind, not to even mention the scale and potential ramification of the Citadel offensive, and these are just a few.

[toki]

Excellent points c-8.

So many blunders by the Nazi regim early on were simply not conducive to winning at all.

I also liked the point above by Toki about the "full throttle" theory. I had not much thought of that aspect. But, find it quite plausible. The whirlwind of events that Hitler had started placed them into a war tempo that was carrying them along...like a raft in a rapidly moving stream...they were helpless to events around them and were quickly (post 1941) becoming reactors rather than real initiators of events.

ASide from the desperation takeover of Italy after the Italian armistice, the Germans never made another offensive move of any real size after 1941...the Belgium offensive in 1944 may be an exception...but was of such a hopeless "doomsday desperation" nature as to be excluded by me.
Yep.
You can't mobilize a whole country like they did in a slow, toned down way. Not only the physical economy was on a war mode. The education - the mindset of the people, all the youth was on (total) war mode as well. You can't keep it on this level for long. Keyword: Momentum. You can't grow a 'warrior' youth (HJ) and beat the ideology into their brains and not use it. (Think about 33-39 - 6 years, a kid turns into a man, or a twelve year old into a soldier, not just a coincidence) Everything called for war. The Third Reich set its own pace and it was absolutely bound to it, it just couldn't leave it. It needed war. All the "wait a few more years and rely on (whatever) recources" theories do not work. And then, if unleashed this model burns itself pretty fast.

And the (pseudo) religious character of it denied rational Realpolitik. Other totalitarian societies, that lived longer always needed some element, that allowed them to live in a stable peace like environment. Cold war for example was an element that created stability for totalitarian societies. Germany didn't have this stabilizing element, just expansion or death. Other stabilizing elements could be isolation (North Korea?) or maybe Religion that is not unique to the country (Iran?). I know it gets a bit philosophical here, but maybe someone can follow this thought.

[Mastermind]

ummm what? There were plenty large scale offensive operations launched by the Germans (some with success) in the past 1941. The Summer offensive of 1942 in the East was on a huge scale, and achieved the penetration of Soviet defensive positions in considerable deapth....lake Balton counter-offensive comes to mind, not to even mention the scale and potential ramification of the Citadel offensive, and these are just a few.
True...and I'll have to admit my statement is certainly arguable. But, I was thinking on a comparative scale. They realy had not much chance of succes because they were never going to be able to exploit their potential successes. After 1941, I see almost all of the German attempts as essentially defensive in nature. I may have to reconsider Citadel, however. But, then, the outcome of it overshadows very much re-evaluation of my comment.

[KoTeMoRe]

I don't quite understand. This thread is a purely speculation thread and just about any line of thought is viable. It seems strange to me to see a personal level being assumed here. As I clearly said, "if the Germans could have suppressed their urge toward cruelty and subjugation..." I honestly don't think I had actually studied any posts by anyone else in here on that...that is just my pure specualtions....like my stated opinion that Russia at the time was existing within a retarded economy. It is my belief Stalin had already bankrupted the Sovied system with his pre-WWII outlandish five year plans...all of which had failed miserably. Russia was essentially working on a slave economy and food failures had devasted the agricultural system. I honestly believe the USSR would have collapsed, possibly under it's own frailty, without WWII Western aid.

Now, I will be the very first to admit, I may be wrong..for there is absolutely no way to prove my opinions are correct, or anyone else's for that matter, since history took the turns that factually it did. But, like everyone else, I am entitled to my opinions. If someone has a problem with that, honest, objective discourse is appreciated. I think that's what fair discussion is all about.



You're not getting it, 1939 is not some stand alone exception in the German political and social Landscape. These speculations have to be based on preset logical situation. I mean If Germany had rational, liberal leaders, wasn't half ravaged by WW1 and economically raped by those who won WW1 it would never had voted for someone that wrote Mein Kampf.

This is your starting point, you can't do without it, or then you're in pure fiction. Wich does not seem to be in accord with the logic of the said Conflict: WW2.

Cheers.

[Lion of War]

Yep.
You can't mobilize a whole country like they did in a slow, toned down way. Not only the physical economy was on a war mode. The education - the mindset of the people, all the youth was on (total) war mode as well. You can't keep it on this level for long. Keyword: Momentum. You can't grow a 'warrior' youth (HJ) and beat the ideology into their brains and not use it. (Think about 33-39 - 6 years, a kid turns into a man, or a twelve year old into a soldier, not just a coincidence) Everything called for war. The Third Reich set its own pace and it was absolutely bound to it, it just couldn't leave it. It needed war. All the "wait a few more years and rely on (whatever) recources" theories do not work. And then, if unleashed this model burns itself pretty fast.

And the (pseudo) religious character of it denied rational Realpolitik. Other totalitarian societies, that lived longer always needed some element, that allowed them to live in a stable peace like environment. Cold war for example was an element that created stability for totalitarian societies. Germany didn't have this stabilizing element, just expansion or death. Other stabilizing elements could be isolation (North Korea?) or maybe Religion that is not unique to the country (Iran?). I know it gets a bit philosophical here, but maybe someone can follow this thought.

Toki I enjoyed reading your responces.But what do you mean by that,I read it like four times and can't figure it out.Could be the vodka.

[Mastermind]

You're not getting it, 1939 is not some stand alone exception in the German political and social Landscape. These speculations have to be based on preset logical situation. I mean If Germany had rational, liberal leaders, wasn't half ravaged by WW1 and economically raped by those who won WW1 it would never had voted for someone that wrote Mein Kampf.

This is your starting point, you can't do without it, or then you're in pure fiction. Wich does not seem to be in accord with the logic of the said Conflict: WW2.

Cheers.

So, as I pointed out earlier, WWI was the springboard that launced the political powder keg that enflamed WWII in Europe...yeah...I think I get that...As for pure fiction...I thought that's exactly what this thread was all about...pure and total BS about the "What If" thing. So?

[KoTeMoRe]

So, as I pointed out earlier, WWI was the springboard that launced the political powder keg that enflamed WWII in Europe...yeah...I think I get that...As for pure fiction...I thought that's exactly what this thread was all about...pure and total BS about the "What If" thing. So?

Nothing...


1. Geared up for "total war" in Sept 39.
2. Applied H-plan Naval Force doctrine (versus Home Fleet)
3. Destroyed the British army at Dunerque. -The imminent threat of invasion would force the Fighter command over the channel and exhaust the RAF much faster. Prolonged Bf109 air time and permanent loss of downed pilots should tip the scale in German favor. Air supremacy in the channel and a heavy German surface fleet would make Seelöwe hard to resist, knocking UK out of the war.
4. Heavier emphasis on Blitzkrieg formations, applying Pz-IV's only (later Panthers only). One production type of aircraft per category; Fw190, Hs129, Ju88. Mechanize and motorize the infantry as much as possible.
5. Barbarossa should still concentrate on the encirclement and destruction of large formations, but must also pursuit the all important objectives; to take Leningrad and Moscow in 41.
6. No declaration of war against the USA (leave the Japs to deplete themselves with that decision). The US might have been happy to be left alone to crush Japan, as there's no real springboard to take on the Germans in Europe anymore (With the Gibraltar and Suez now in German hands). Btw - no allies in Europe no more.
6. No invasion of Norway. With UK out, the campaign against Yugoslavia and Greece is not an issue. Barbarossa can start in early May 41 with the full, combined force of the Wehrmacht. Yugoslavia (without the coup) might have joined Hungary, Slovakia, Rumania, and Bulgaria.7. Pressure on Turkey and Spain to enter or support the Axis more (might have brought the Italian fleet to the Black sea). This might be less difficult with the German total victory in the West. Sweden and Persia might also tend to support the Germans at such a height of victorious campaigns.
8. Ending/shutting up Adolf in 1942 (leaving the generals to do their job).
9. No subs, V1&2's, Atlantic Wall, AA or Western fighter screen.
10. Welcome the many Soviet volunteers by creating "Liberation army of the Ukraine", etc. Avoid cruelty toward civilians and POWs.
11. No Holocaust! The dissent made by this, and the moral implications among righteous men avoided. More trains available to supply the front. Talented people spared. -Humanity and historical honor intact.
12. Emphasize on general chivalric or civilized warfare to all soldiers. More Rommel, Manstein and Kesselring. Less Himmler, Heydrich and Göring (so to speak). This might lessen the brutality at the front, making the Russians less vengeful or hesitant to surrender.
13. No political prestige interference in the Oberkommando, Stalingrad's avoided (encircle cities).
14. USSR given reasonable conditions to surrender, but must give up Moscow, Leningrad, much of heavy industry and weapons.
Just that.

Edit: I don't know how you'll get no holocaust with the State being nazified since 1935, Nurenberg laws passed against Jews.

Eliminating a nation with almost endless Human ressources and a top class Navy (especially with Enigma being cracked since 1938)

Not treating with barbary the Soviet Subhumans, speaking about chivalry when the Whole OKW was desiced and filled of joy when set loose on europe and USSR.

I mean these If's are senseless, they reject a huge part of responsability that the german OKH bore in the Shoah, bullet genocide, and spreading of racist and anti-semitic beliefs among troops. They still rely heavily on that beaten to death and discredited thesis of a twin faced Germany at war. Sauber Wehrmacht and filthy political SS.

What these if's demonstrate is a profound ignorance rather than "mental masturbation". You can't have one side without other, it simply doesn't make sense.

Or then you accept surfing on wave of BoguS for the sake of it.

Either way, I don't get the point of Speculation if it has to pass by complete reality revisionism.

Cheers.

[c-eight]

wasn't half ravaged by WW1 and economically raped by those who won WW1 it would never had voted for someone that wrote Mein Kampf.
BS!

Quite the contrary in fact.

They never had any window brocken on their soil, THAT's the problem!

After they could fight back on the legends front the war they've lost on the battle field and thus give to the population a deep feeling of injustice, treason, denial of defeat, in one word: paranoïa.
Such amont of sufferances during WW1, such sacrifices, heroïsm, privations, deads by millions, millions of wouded 'brocken heads', lost soldiers, in the streets, and one tell you again and again that you haven't lost but been betrayed?

Enough to drive you crazy.
They were not nasty they were ill.

The hasty stop of the war in november 1918 is the root of all evil.

[KoTeMoRe]

BS!

Quite the contrary in fact.

They never had any window brocken on their soil, THAT's the problem!

After they could fight back on the legends front the war they've lost on the battle field and thus give to the population a deep feeling of injustice, treason, denial of defeat, in one word: paranoïa.
Such amont of sufferances during WW1, such sacrifices, heroïsm, privations, deads by millions, millions of wouded 'brocken heads', lost soldiers, in the streets, and one tell you again and again that you haven't lost but been betrayed?

Enough to drive you crazy.
They were not nasty they were ill.

The hasty stop of the war in november 1918 is the root of all evil.

You sir need a serious recap on post war years...

Let me introduce you to the versailles treaty, the dismantlement of the german Army, Navy, Industry, Economy, by Allied Powers after november 1918...

A picture is worth a thousand words...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/WiemarRepublic_September_01_1923_50MillionMark.jpg

Sorry to dismiss your point but germany was economically ravaged after the war.

1923 50 million banknote. Post WW1 Germany invented hyperinflation as a concept.

[c-eight]

Unfair the Versaille treaty? And how was the Brest-Litovsk treaty toward the Russians? Hum?

Had Germany been put in fire in 1918-1919 as it should have been and I promise you that:
-1 the Versaille treaty would have looked very sweet
-2 the 50 millions deads of WWII would have been avoided.
-3 Hitler claiming that Germany has been betrayed in spite the raped Germans were a superior race whould have been put in psychiatric hospital and basta!

The Russians have done this much better in 1945.

Keep your nazi pre-war propaganda for your own naziland!

[KoTeMoRe]

Unfair the Versaille treaty? And how was the Brest-Litovsk treaty toward the Russians? Hum?

Had Germany been put in fire in 1918-1919 as it should have been and I promise you that:
-1 the Versaille treaty would have looked very sweet
-2 the 50 millions deads of WWII would have been avoided.
-3 Hitler claiming that Germany has been betrayed in spite the raped Germans were a superior race whould have been put in psychiatric hospital and basta!

The Russians have done this much better in 1945.

Keep your nazi pre-war propaganda for your own naziland!

Error 1. Not Russians-Soviets. You can't get it can you?

Error 2. Brest-Litowsk was agreed upon by still fairly naive, shorthanded and hasted professional revolutionnaries, that had no Idea of what the Tzarist Empire was. It was done for the sake of the Ideal. That was Bread, Land, Peace. I'm sure Lokos or any CIS member with relative knowledge will entirely correct any missconception.

Error 3. Germany was bankrupt, and this was a direct hit from the four year long war. It was on ersatz since late 1916 and the demographic bleeding was simply catastrophic. Germany avoided a "close Spartakist call" and faced internal disorder from the establishing of Weimar till it's demise.


Error 4. Loosing your colonies, 15 percent of the territory and military might was a bad hit, but seeing your industries plundered by the french victors, the Ruhr used as a repayment asset to the Allied forces is a decisive blow.

All of these and the sudden krach in 1929 that broke the slow german recovery nailed the fate of the Weimar Republic.

Beyond that Anti-semitism in Germany was endemic in 1919, that endemic that the German high Command ordered an Enquiry on the conduct of the german jewish soldiers to be sure that they did not "betrayed". Ironically the Allies had the same intent when they declared Oulianov a german Jew agent that "broke Russia".

Hitler's shade in 1919 was already there in the form of the disruptive freikorp and their reorganisation into the Stahlhlem.

Lokos said it and I failed to listen, you're still in dreamworld.

Although I'll be glad to hear your version of what caused the Second World war.

[DID]

this thread didn't exist if Germany have won ww II...........:)

[little icebear]

this thread didn't exist if Germany have won ww II...........:)

Right. In that case the title would be "WWII: Germany might have lost if..." p-)

[Buckeye67]

I saw a good video on youtube that discussed this very issue. I thought it was quite thought provoking:

http://www.youtube.com/v/A7kE1Vte2iM

[Lokos]

Yeah...economically retared is right. Russia was propped up by massive aid from the western nations

No, it wasn't. Post your sources. What the Soviet Union received from Western states it paid for. That's called trade. If you are referring to the period of 1941-1945, the aid was mostly intended to make up for the loss of the Ukrainian industrial region, the Donets basin, Belarus, the underperforming factories of Leningrad (due to the siege) and the loss of a population base of sixty million (among them many skilled workers) in the occupied territories. As I said, this economically 'retarded' state outproduced the Germans having suffered the above economic losses. And that had nothing to do with Lend Lease, which began making its presence known towards the end of 1942 and in 1943.


There would have been a much more difficult reconstruction and relocation of the war factories without the American and British machine tools, transport systems and vital war materials.

Rubbish! None of that was available in 1941. The Western stuff that was there was bought before the war. I know of no historian that holds your point of view on this topic. Start presenting sources!


there would not have been such a huge influx of war material from the west to Russia.

Which there wasn't, during the period that the Germans were advancing.


His insistance on diversion of the Army Groups toward Moscow was utterly absurd. Poor planning, improper expectations (underestimating the enemy) and his reliance on 'Mystical or divine interventions" doomed the effort.

This is mistaken. The diversion of formations of the AGC towards Kiev (which is what I believe you intended to say, as they were headed for Moscow from the start of the war) was not absurd. Kiev housed the remnants of the Western Military Distrct - more than eight hundred thousand troops with significant materiel support. Had the Germans not eliminated this enormous concentration, AGC could have found its logistical lifeline cut during the advance on Moscow. It was sound military thinking, based on the belief that the RKKA (Red Army) was already, for the most part, defeated. Hitler should not be faulted for holding a belief that the majority of his General Staff held.


This would in deed match the Home Fleet, as the Italian fleet would tie up the Medit fleet

Why would the Italian fleet tie up the 'Medit'? How would they stop them from moving up to the British Isles? What of the British airforce? Where is the merchant marine or transport fleet to transfer your magical Sealion invasion force? How would around the clock air cover be maintained? How would logistical support be guaranteed?


It is my belief Stalin had already bankrupted the Sovied system with his pre-WWII outlandish five year plans...all of which had failed miserably

How did they do so?


Russia was essentially working on a slave economy and food failures had devasted the agricultural system. I honestly believe the USSR would have collapsed, possibly under it's own frailty, without WWII Western aid

Your understanding of the WW2 Soviet Union (the 'food shortages' were over by 1936, let alone 1941...) is, at best, highly flawed and significantly fragmented.


No. You mixed 'deads' and casualities

Did I? What do you think a permanent loss is? I said 45,000 permanent casualties in France. That's dead and missing. And there were more than 300,000 permanent casualties in the Soviet Union during the first six months of active operations. Where do you get that 71,000 from? My source is Rudiger Overmans. What is yours?


I'll give you the number I have and the source tonight. I stand my point concerning the average daily losses from September to December. Not to make a 'stupid' comparison but to correct what is - IMO - a inacuracy from you.

... and change the tone please.

In every month the average daily permanent loss was higher than a thousand. Therefore, you are mistaken. And badly mistaken! As for the tone, I have little time for your chauvinistic, offtopic babble. Aside from looking ignorant by not having accurate numbers, your spiel is simply flat-out annoying.


The Germans suffered 45000 deads in France in 1940 and 160000 casualities with the wounded.


And the Germans suffered 302,000 'deads' in the Soviet Union in 1941, and more than 600,000 wounded.


The first 5 month of the war cost the 3rd Reich: 71000 killed, 148000 wounded, 1300 tanks, 660 planes. So about as much losses (more in material) as during the BAF on a shorter period of time.


Ahh, a source. Finally. And what does your French book ('The Heroic Sacrifice of the French Army'?) claim as its source?

Because I have a German historian putting German losses in Russia as four times higher during the period in question.


Again the aim isn't a 'stupid' comparison but either way one say that the German army was exhausted after the first month in Russia as Loko did, but in this case so it was after the battle of France, or you say that they were not but so it works in both cases too.


They were exhausted in neither France nor the Soviet Union after a month of combat...


the Germans never made another offensive move of any real size after 1941...the Belgium offensive in 1944 may be an exception...

So Case Blau and the Kursk operation (the latter with more than 900,000 German Wehrmacht and SS troops participating) don't count?


The hasty stop of the war in november 1918 is the root of all evil.

Read Niall Ferguson's 'The Pity of War'. Perhaps you will be convinced that 1918 had little to do with 1939.


Sorry to dismiss your point but germany was economically ravaged after the war.

Not really. Post-war Germany had its share of problems, but it actually performed well economically until 1921. The disaster that followed had other causes, and, in turn, so did 1933...


and the demographic bleeding was simply catastrophic

Actually, that's a bit of a myth. The graduating classes of each of the war years outnumbered the permanent losses of the field army.


Brest-Litowsk was agreed upon by still fairly naive, shorthanded and hasted professional revolutionnaries, that had no Idea of what the Tzarist Empire was. It was done for the sake of the Ideal. That was Bread, Land, Peace. I'm sure Lokos or any CIS member with relative knowledge will entirely correct any missconception

I agree. They were very naive. And also fairly powerless! They went into the negotiations having already determined that peace was to be bought at any price. They negotiated from the position of the defeated party, sadly.

Lokos

[c-eight]

Because I have a German historian putting German losses in Russia as four times higher during the period in question.

A German source concerning war??

rofl For those incurable historical mythomaniac a truth is just a lie repeated 1000 times


Read Niall Ferguson's 'The Pity of War'.

Doesn't worth more. First because the Germans were the first ethnic group in the US since the 19th century and they heavily relayed the nazi "Dolchtosslegend" and denial of defeat propaganda between the 2 wars;
and secondly call me back when 98% of the Americans will stop to believe that they have saved French asses in 1918 and had made 80% of the job to crunch the 3rd Reich during the 2nd...
(And for the Brits when they'll stop to believe that they have crunched Napoleon alone or almost...)


Although I'll be glad to hear your version of what caused the Second World war.

To have not finished the job on the German land in 1918, up to Berlin. Or at least launch the big offensive on Loraine planed the 14th of November.

This interpretation is the traditional conservative French one but it's the most relevant IMO. Other don't sustain the critic or are politically correct BS to make everybody friends now (still IMO)

"war makes born and die states. If the gigantic effort provided by our people at the time of the first world war could open to us the door of the revival, we closed it ourselves in missing to complete our military victory. But in the hasty stop of the fights which occured in November 11, 1918, at a time we were going triumphantly to gather the fruits of the victory, for how much had counted the voice of the Anglosaxons?"

De Gaulle in the 1st volume of his Memory of hope.

He refer to this Wilson idealist idiot who made everything to stop the war in 1918 while even Pershing wanted to continue it. The Germans were not on the knees militarily speaking, they were down the face in the mud.

That's the biggest mistake of the 20th century and the root of all evil.

[KoTeMoRe]

There it is, the bottom of this debate.

You reject the national ability to produce an accurate (relatively) historical vision of WW2 of three of our biggest groups in MP.net.

Nice one. And of course an half disgruntled French researcher, heavily relying on derivative sources like Lormier is a better deal?

Sure what about general denial of a flawed international relationship, that Wilson awkwardly understood. See If we were to look deeper in the causes burning Deutschland to the ground would have been of no use For the European Allies since all they wanted from the Central empires was to halt their economic growth and be eliminated as potential competitors. By burning it the possibility of repayment would have been really slim. You don't kill your cow, you squeeze it.

Strictly as pre-WW2 showed, in 1918 there were other dangers regarding the biggest Continental Nation in Europe then, like the Spartakist Uprising.

Failing to see that and destroying the german State and Army was going to empower the Communists in the Urban areas (a general Strike did happened towards the End of WW1). With the whole mess in their paws I don't think the Germans were on anything good. Especially with Russia being Nailed by the Bolshevik Stroke. You could have been in the verge of the greatest of disasters or revolutions (depending your view).

[Lokos]

A German source concerning war??


No, you're right, I'll turn to a French historian to get the right numbers regarding German casualties in the fight against the Soviet Union. Search around. Rudiger Overmans is the real deal.


Doesn't worth more. First because the Germans were the first ethnic group in the US since the 19th century and they heavily relayed the nazi "Dolchtosslegend" and denial of defeat propaganda between the 2 wars;
and secondly call me back when 98% of the Americans will stop to believe that they have saved French asses in 1918 and had made 80% of the job to crunch the 3rd Reich during the 2nd...
(And for the Brits when they'll stop to believe that they have crunched Napoleon alone or almost...)


I don't know what, exactly, you think any of the above has to do with what I wrote - maybe it's the language barrier...


To have not finished the job on the German land in 1918, up to Berlin. Or at least launch the big offensive on Loraine planed the 14th of November.


Can you refute Ferguson's arguments for me, or are you going to post a thesis without any referencing or actual, substantive evidence? Why did this lack of 'finishing the job' make WW2 inevitable?


That's the biggest mistake of the 20th century and the root of all evil.


And that's wrong. See how easy it is to say something without presenting any evidence for it? Bam!

EDIT:

Here's another set of numbers of German monthly KIA/MIA from Feldgrau:


May 1940 21,602 | 850

June 1940 26,583 | 118

July 1940 2,204 | 20

August 1940 1,842 | ?

September 1940 1,635 | 87

October 1940 1,348 | 120

November 1940 1,221 | 89

December 1940 1,206 | 14

KIA/MIA 1941

January 1941 1,396 | 100

February 1941 1,347 | 86

March 1941 1,578 | 97

April 1941 3,580 | 560

May 1941 2,807 | 500

June 1941 22,000 | 900

July 1941 51,000 | 3,200

August 1941 52,800 | 3,500

September 1941 45,300 | 2,100

October 1941 42,400 | 1,900

November 1941 28,200 | 4,600

December 1941 39,000 | 10,453



Lokos

[CMNot]

Great, just what this thread needs, nationalism :roll:

[Lokos]

Great, just what this thread needs, nationalism :roll:

Whose nationalism do you mean?

Lokos

[CMNot]

La Francais.

[KoTeMoRe]

Somehow I can't help laughing at the whole "stop your nazi-propaganda" delirium after that.

Lokos, one small disagreement regarding the economical state of the 2nd reich post ww1, what do you mean by-Economically OK. You mean their capacity to produce or the possibility to produce. Note this is OT no need to answer.

[Indiana Jones]

C-eight:
Garde ton sang-froid, s'il vous plaît ! En premier, il n`y a aucune raison pour se conduire dans une manière offensante comme ça. En plus, j'ai l'impression que votre mépris pour L'Allemagne a terni votre jugement. Finallement, la gloire des armes françaises n'a pas de tout besoin de ces outrances, mais je crains, qu'avec toi, c'est comme si on pissait dans un violon. Alors, on peut faire une petite comparaison, hein ?
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait%C3%A9_de_Francfort
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait%C3%A9_de_Versailles

This thread is another perfect illustration of why I increasingly stay away from this forum. Now as for the treaty of Versailles: If one familiarizes itself with the customs and precedents of contemporary diplomacy, it becomes strikingly obvious that not only was it perceived as a gross affront by the German side, but that it was also entirely intended as such by the victors.

[roland]

The Yanks didn't saved the French in 1918. They saved the Germans.

Saying the Versailles treaty was too had is ridiculous when, had the allies stayed united, we could have plundered, raped and burnt this country (and annexed the left side of the Rhine while we were at it)

[oldsoak]

C-eight:
Garde ton sang-froid, s'il vous plaît ! En premier, il n`y a aucune raison pour se conduire dans une manière offensante comme ça. En plus, j'ai l'impression que votre mépris pour L'Allemagne a terni votre jugement. Finallement, la gloire des armes françaises n'a pas de tout besoin de ces outrances, mais je crains, qu'avec toi, c'est comme si on pissait dans un violon. Alors, on peut faire une petite comparaison, hein ?
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait%C3%A9_de_Francfort
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait%C3%A9_de_Versailles

This thread is another perfect illustration of why I increasingly stay away from this forum. Now as for the treaty of Versailles: If one familiarizes itself with the customs and precedents of contemporary diplomacy, it becomes strikingly obvious that not only was it perceived as a gross affront by the German side, but that it was also entirely intended as such by the victors.

that surely should come as no suprise considering the damge that Imperial Germany had inflicted on the rest of Europe by war and occupation.

[Freibier]

The Yanks didn't saved the French in 1918. They saved the Germans.

Saying the Versailles treaty was too had is ridiculous when, had the allies stayed united, we could have plundered, raped and burnt this country (and annexed the left side of the Rhine while we were at it)
roflroflrofl

[Lokos]

roland:


had the allies stayed united, we could have plundered, raped and burnt this country (and annexed the left side of the Rhine while we were at it)

Why would you want such an outcome? It's unbecoming, really.

Lokos

[Sheikh Al Stranghi]

In regard to western machines and equipment being in the former SU, much of it was indeed bought before the war. To make things even MORE complicated, the Germans actually sold a lot of industrial equipment to the former SU BEFORE the war to pay for the raw materials they got from the Ukraine!

So when the Germans invaded, they found a lot of their old equipment, mainly in factories.

[KoTeMoRe]

that surely should come as no suprise considering the damge that Imperial Germany had inflicted on the rest of Europe by war and occupation.

Or we could underline that the treaty was indeed the goal pursued by all of the "Entente" belligerants before entering the war.

Obviously someone lost the track of historiography somewhere between 1899 and 1945.

Roland: or sent tirailleurs to "demilitarize" the Rhine banks. That is the exact thing they did. As for staying United, this shows complete lack of knowledge about the power status of those times.

[roland]

roflroflrofl

What do you think ? who could have prevented that apart the allies themselves ? the German army ? givme a break: it's not that it was about to collapse, it had already started to collapse.



L’offensive de l’Entente dans le Nord et l’Aisne
La bataille pour Laon : octobre 1918

Les résultats obtenus en Champagne, en Argonne (http://www.chtimiste.com/batailles1418/1918champagneargonne.htm), dans la Somme, dans le Cambrésis et dans les Flandres ont ébranlé l'adversaire; ils ne l'ont pas abattu. La lutte continue donc, acharnée, dans toutes les régions par où on peut menacer les points vitaux du dispositif ennemi. Cette lutte, le moment est venu de l'intensifier au maximum; et pour cela, bien que les renforts américains ne soient pas encore à pied d’œuvre, le maréchal Foch ne va pas hésiter à mettre en ligne toutes les réserves de l'Entente en hommes et en matériel.

Le principe de l'action à entamer est simple :
La multiplication des offensives pour éparpiller les dernières réserves de l'ennemi : suppression des intervalles entre ces offensives, pour ne pas laisser à Ludendorff le temps de se reconnaître et de reprendre haleine ; combinaison des attaques déclenchées sur les divers théâtres, pour les faire concourir au même but.
Et c'est ainsi que les canons vont hurler à la fois et sans arrêt dans le Nord, dans le Cambrésis, en Champagne et en Argonne ; chaque succès sur quelque point du vaste front obligera l'ennemi à abandonner un large lambeau de territoire.

Dés le 6 octobre, Foch avait télégraphié à Degoutte, lui ordonnant de hâter, au-delà de l'impossible, la réorganisation du Groupe des Flandres et, quelque temps qu'il fît, de reprendre les opérations au plus tard le 10. Simultanément il actionnait Haig et Pétain pour réaliser par l'ouest et par le sud une offensive concentrique, destinée à chasser l'ennemi du saillant de Laon.
L'exécution suivit de prés la conception.

Le 8 octobre, à 4h30; Les Armées Byng et Rawlinson, précédées de tanks, se portent en avant entre la Sensée et Saint-Quentin.
Le succès est foudroyant. Les nouvelles lignes ennemies construites en hâte, n'étaient pas encore en état de soutenir un pareil assaut. Elles cèdent au premier choc; et, le soir, le front britannique est jalonné par Forenville, La Targette, Esnes, Malincourt, à 7 kilomètres plus à l'est, sur un front de 50 kilomètres.
Nos alliés ont capturé, ce jour-là, 11000 prisonniers et 200 canons.

Or, en même temps, dès six heures du matin, Debeney a déclenché, lui aussi, une offensive sur un front de 10 kilomètres, entre Saint-Quentin et l'Oise. En dépit d'une vigoureuse résistance, il a enlevé les fermes de Hellecourt et de Fontaine-Uterte, solidement organisées, les bois de la ferme Tilloy et le village de Rouvroy, capturant prés de 15000 prisonniers.

Le 9 octobre, la victoire se poursuit. Les Canadiens ont forcé, à 1h30 du matin, le passage de l'Escaut à Ramillies. La résistance ennemie faiblit et la poursuite commence, ardente, dés le petit jour. Avant midi, nos Alliés ont; progressé d'une dizaine de kilomètres; et, le soir, Bohain, Prémont et Clary sont emportés.
C'est; encore une poussée de 12 kilomètres en moyenne, sur 10 kilomètres de développement, qui dégage largement Cambrai et fait tomber prés de 2000 prisonniers aux mains des 3e et 4e Armées britanniques.

Debeney gagne du terrain aussi, d'autant plus que maintenant la résistance ennemie commence à devenir plus molle de son côté. Il dégage largement Saint-Quentin; et, le soir, ses avant-gardes atteignent l'Oise, ayant capturé prés de 2000 prisonniers et un matériel important.

La nuit arrête à peine le combat, et le 10 octobre, au matin, la poursuite continue.
Au nord, Byng enlèveThun-Saint-Martin, Naves et Carniéres; au sud, Rawlinson dépasse Caudroy et pousse jusqu'aux portes du Cateau. Maintenant l'artillerie elle-même réagit faiblement ; et, dans les localités abandonnées en toute hâte par les Allemands, on retrouve de nombreux civils que l'ennemi n'a pas eu le temps d'évacuer. Au-delà, la nuit s'illumine de sinistres lueurs. De nombreuses localités brûlent.

Debeney a atteint Bautroux, Fontaine-Notre-Dame et Marcy, où il a délivré ses habitants. Le soir, la 1e Armée a encore gagné du terrain vers l'Oise, dont elle tient la rive droite sur une étendue d'une vingtaine de kilomètres.

Le 11 octobre, Le Cateau résiste à Rawlinson, mais nos Alliés progressent vers le nord, enlevant Saint-Vaast, Quiévy, Briastre, mais sans réussir à. franchir le canal, dont l'ennemi garde les passages avec d'innombrables mitrailleuses.
La progression paraît donc enrayée sur ce point.



Aussi la manœuvre se dessine-t-elle déjà ailleurs
Afin que l'ennemi n'ait aucun répit.

Gouraud est arrivé sur l'Arnes où, le 8 octobre, la division Weywada (102e, 103e, 104e régiments d'infanterie, 26e régiment d'artillerie), transportée en camions du camp de Châlons, a remporté un brillant succès dans la région de Saint-Étienne à Arnes.

Enfin, le 9 octobre, Pétain a lancé la 10e Armée droit contre le saillant de Laon. Mangin a pour mission d'accrocher l'ennemi sur son front et de le fixer pour l'obliger à maintenir là ses réserves, tandis que Berthelot enfoncera sa droite.

Le 10, Mangin se porte en avant; mais les Allemands, qui prévoyaient le choc, commencent à se replier. Aucune résistance sérieuse ne s'oppose à nos colonnes qui progressent; seulement sous un violent; bombardement, dirigé à la fois sur nos premières lignes et sur nos arrières. A 17 heures, nos avant-gardes occupent le Grand-Pont, la ferme Malvel, Verneuil, tandis qu'un régiment d'infanterie italienne s'empare de Beaulne à la grenade.

Dans la nuit du 11 au 12, Mangin commence à franchir l'Aisne.
Magnifique élan.
Le corps d'Armée Italien atteint le Chemin des Dames et nos avant-gardes s'emparent de Chivy et de Moulins. L'ennemi cède. Pétain estime qu'il ne faut pas le laisser échapper, et il juge le moment venu de lancer Berthelot et Gouraud.

Le 11 octobre, tandis que Mangin progresse toujours vers Craonne, prenant à revers le Chemin des dames et la vallée de l'Aisne, Berthelot force le passage de la Suippe.

Le 12 octobre, la pression devient générale : la décision se précipite. Byng avance vers Solesmes, Kawlinson vers Guise, Debeney vers la Fère et aussi au delà de l'Oise, qu'il a franchie au mont d'Origny.

Quant à. Mangin, voyant la retraite de l'ennemi se dessiner nettement, il fonce sur les arrière-gardes de Hutier, et les bouscule à, travers Chavignon et Anizy-le-Château, leur enlevant d'un bloc presque tout le massif de Saint-Gobain. Le soir, son front passe par Prémontré, Thierry, Varges, et à 4 kilomètres de Laon.

Berthelot, en dépit d'une vigoureuse résistance, refoule l'ennemi au delà de l'Aisne, qu'il franchit de vive force à Neufchâtel et à Guignicourt. Dans la soirée, il enlève Craonne et Asfeld. Le gain de cette journée dépasse 15 kilomètres en profondeur, sur un front de 20 kilomètres, et notre cavalerie ne retrouve que le soir le contact des arrière-gardes ennemies.

Quant à Gouraud, il a franchi la Retourne, largement dépassé Juniville et est parvenu au, abords de l'Aisne, jusque dans les faubourgs (le Rethel et de Vouziers.

S’en est fait : Ludendorff a perdu la bataille pour Laon.
L'Alberick Stellung, disloquée par Mangin, débordée largement à gauche par Berthelot et par Gouraud, doit être abandonnée.

Plus de réserves disponibles : à peine vingt divisions épuisées, qu'il a fallu répartir dans les divers secteurs pour parer à une rupture. Sur les 191 divisions allemandes qui existent encore sur le front français, 139 ont été engages et abîmées... 84 divisions sont en première ligne et engagées depuis plus de quinze jours, de jour et de nuit, dans une lutte acharnée; Elles sont à bout de forces.

En se repliant au-delà de l'Aisne devant Gouraud, Von Einem annonce bien encore une grande victoire et un succès « stratégique » de la plus haute importance, mais personne ne s'y trompe plus. Partout, les effectifs sont terriblement réduits; les régiments de la 8e division allemande ne sont plus que des squelettes; le 408e a un total de 400 hommes; le 238e, de 200 ; Le 254e, de 240.
Sans parler des morts et des blessés dont, à première vue, le chiffre paraît considérable, l'Armée a perdu plus de 300000 prisonniers et le tiers de son artillerie. Prés de 300 bataillons ont dû être dissous, et la classe 1920 toute entière en ligne, ne suffit pas à combler les vides. La ligne de feu n'est plus alimentée que par des réservistes trop âgés ou par des conscrits trop jeunes.

Tout en pressant avec activité les démarches en vue de l'armistice, Ludendorff songe à profiter de la protection précaire qu'offrent encore les lignes de l'Oise et de l'Aisne à Hutier et à Von Einem pour replier la XVIIIe, la VIIe et la Ie Armées derrière les positions Brunehilde et Hunding, tout en abandonnant le noeud formidable de la Fère, devenu indéfendable.


Debenev entre donc dans la Fère le 13 octobre, et talonne l'ennemi â travers la forêt de Saint-Gobain. Mangin pénètre dans Laon à 10 heures du matin et y trouve 6500 habitants. En quittant la ville, les Allemands, suivant la coutume qui leur est chère et ne pouvant faire mieux, ont emmené comme otages le maire et 300 notables.

Mangin poursuit sa course, malgré le mauvais état des chemins, et refoule l'ennemi jusqu'à la ligne Souche-Serre. A Marchais, il délivre 2000 personnes. Pendant ce temps, Berthelot a occupé la Malmaison, et Gouraud a achevé de rejeter les arrière-gardes ennemies au-delà de l'Aisne, qu'il borde maintenant de Rethel â Vouziers.

Les 14,15 et 16 nouveaux progrès de Debeney, de Mangin et de Berthelot; mais ce ne sont que des progrès locaux qui amènent nos avant-gardes au contact immédiat des positions Brunehilde et Hunding.

Ces positions, il faudra une nouvelle bataille pour les faire tomber ; en attendant le moment de la livrer, l'esprit du maréchal Foch est déjà appliqué à un autre objet.

http://www.chtimiste.com/batailles1418/1918aisne.htm

Let me translate the part in bold for you:

Withdrawing over Aisne in front of Gouraud, Von Einem annouce again "a great victory and a utermost important "strategic" success" (LOL), but nobody buy it anymore. Everywhere the units numbers are terribly reduced; the regiments of the 8th German division are only
Skeletons; the 408th have a total of 400 men; the 238th, 200 ; the 254th, 240.
Let alone the number of dead and wounded, witch seem considerable, the army lost more than 300000 prisonners and one third or its artillery. Almost 300 bataillons have to be dissolved, and the 1920 class, the all on the front, isn't enough to fill the holes. The line of fire is only fueled by too old reservists or too young conscriprts.

[little icebear]

What do you think ? who could have prevented that apart the allies themselves ? the German army ? givme a break: it's not that it was about to collapse, it had already started to collapse.


Was the French Army so much better off? Playing down the impact of the American intervention means revising history.

[roland]

roland:



Why would you want such an outcome? It's unbecoming, really.

Lokos

For now I want nothing apart prove that the Versailles treaty isn't as hard as the legend say.
That's the biginning of this off topic.

Now still I think it would have been better, for different reasons, one being that I agree with C8, that would have most probably avoided us WWII:
One can't ask a starving and devastated people to pay reparation by contract. This Versailles treaty is stupid. Worse, it was supposed to last years witch prevented us to turn the page and move on. On the contrary, plundering is a once for all thing.
Then, it would have broken the "uber alles" complex of this most talented but young and immature nation.

Have been done in WWII, now we are friends :hug:

[KoTeMoRe]

For now I want nothing apart prove that the Versailles treaty isn't as hard as the legend say.
That's the biginning of this off topic.

Now still I think it would have been better, for different reasons, one being that I agree with C8, that would have most probably avoided us WWII:
One can't ask a starving and devastated people to pay reparation by contract. This Versailles treaty is stupid. Worse, it was supposed to last years witch prevented us to turn the page and move on. On the contrary, plundering is a once for all thing.
Then, it would have broken the "uber alles" complex of this most talented but young and immature nation.

Have been done in WWII, now we are friends :hug:

Underlined ZE classique. Plundering can come in a form a razzia that is all but a single hit.

The Versailles treaty was harsh, hypocritical and senseless despite the interested (no not interesting) "soft" approach the US administration of the time, used to deal with both parties.

Oh and forbidding Germany the means of defending itself lets say against the USSR (read Great Britain/France), depriving her of her colonies (I'm not defending the colonial system), declaring germany only culprit of the war etc etc etc was regular payback?

Sure the French have some curious ways of reading history.

The Uber Alles complex seems to affect usually Germany's neighbours.

[hank]

Query. Why isn't this thread one of those threads we don't like here at mp.net.


and all those stupid "what if" topics. Most are pointless in the extreme.

Isn't this pointless in the extreme? I mean, unless you have a time machine? Hasn't this horse been beaten to death yet?

hank

[c-eight]

or are you going to post a thesis without any referencing or actual, substantive evidence? Why did this lack of 'finishing the job' make WW2 inevitable?Useless to write a thesis. It's already done: http://www.amazon.fr/Aux-racines-mal-1918-d%C3%A9faite/dp/2847341587/ref=sr_1_1/171-4516960-7358636?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200213676&sr=1-1
Translation: "To the roots of the evil: 1918 the denial of defeat"

You just have to learn French now... :)

Come on, don't try to present this as a excentric thesis will ya? Either way that'd mean that you're ignorant, or want to look so (I bet on the 2nd).

Everybody agree that Versaille treaty was crap: too kind or too tough. That was 50-50. There were furious debat at the parliament about the oportunity to continue the war or not in October/November 1918.

A meeting between Petain, Haig and Pershing at Senlis the 25th of October 1918 is recounted by Foch like this (more or less):
"points of views didn't evolve: Petain want to continue the war and bring it on German soil, Pershing thinks the same but Wilson want absolutally peace, Haig hesitate" (not the exact word but I can't bother to dig).
The well known slogan of the 'war continuators' was: "make the Germans feel their defeat".

Anyway the German imperial army was in the same stage of decay as say... in March 1945 during WWII. That's only on the legend front that this coward moronic OHL managed to win some battle... after.

Why do you think the Dolchtosslegend is called a legend?

The "too kind" version became a little out of fashion after WWII to make everybody friend, and turn the page, but now we have the amazing phenomenon that some explain us that Versaille is the main reason of WWII.... and you'll see that they're going to explain us soon that WWII is French fault!
(some have crossed the step without inhibition, specially since 2002 :slap: )

Want to open historical pandora box?

That's fine. But don't do it on a international forum, do it on a blog where you make the questions AND the replies. Like this you'll be certain that you'll agree with yourself in the interesting debat between yourself and yourself.

Now feel reassured, we're not going to make a big radioactive cratere in the middle of Europe now to fix a mistake made in November 1918 :roll:

[Lokos]

Come on, don't try to present this as a excentric thesis will ya? Either way that'd mean that you're ignorant, or want to look so (I bet on the 2nd).

Everybody agree that Versaille treaty was crap: too kind or too tough

I don't disagree with the position that the treaty of Versailles was insulting, without being particularly 'tough'.


Anyway the German imperial army was in the same stage of decay as say... in March 1945 during WWII.

... No, it wasn't. What evidence do you have for that?


Want to open historical pandora box?

That's fine. But don't do it on a international forum, do it on a blog where you make the questions AND the replies. Like this you'll be certain that you'll agree with yourself in the interesting debat between yourself and yourself

c-eight, you are being obstinately obtuse. I asked you for referencing and sources for your claims; my own claims are that Versailles had little, if anything, to do with WW2. I don't actually understand what you're arguing. My issue with you was your foolish claim on German May/June 1940 casualty rates when compared to those of June-December 1941.

I don't care about your bombastic opinions regarding what caused WW2, indirectly. If you think it's because the Germans weren't smashed utterly, that's your business. I'll sit back and let you enjoy the belief that the opinion is correct.


Lokos, one small disagreement regarding the economical state of the 2nd reich post ww1, what do you mean by-Economically OK. You mean their capacity to produce or the possibility to produce. Note this is OT no need to answer.

KoTeMoRe:

Have a look at a book called 'The Pity of War' by Niall Ferguson. Very convincing stuff. Particularly the stuff on the post-war performance of European economies. Germany's proved surprisingly resilient. The responsibility for the disaster of 1921 lay primarily with questionable economic decisions made after the war. My grasp of the specifics is not exact, at the moment, but the book is on my shelf, and I can get details for you, if you wish.

Lokos

[Guerrier_Franc]

Then the dictator begin to belive his own propaganda and think they are a 'superior race' (or the 'greatest people of the universe': Napoleon) while they just had a 'superior tactic'. And he attacks more and more.



Napoleon wasn't a dictator and he always wanted peace.

[Freibier]

Napoleon wasn't a dictator and he always wanted peace.
you frenchmen never cease to amaze me, thanks for ze laugh rofl

[Pleonasm]

Napoleon wasn't a dictator and he always wanted peace.Yeah sure, he wasn't a dictator, he was just the Emperor of a semi-dictatorial country (no wait, forget the "semi") and was the proud owner of such democratic titles like "King of Italy". And yes, Nappy wanted peace. A peace which would make him ruler of Europe (or at least ruler of France after everything went bad).
So, in a weird way you're actually right. rofl

[roland]

you frenchmen never cease to amaze me, thanks for ze laugh rofl

You laugh a lot but it remain that it is true: it is Britain that stubbornly always refused peace and funded coalitions again and again.
Before the campaign of Russia, at the top of Napoleon's power, there were talks of peace with the British. Napoleon was ready to give up all the conquered territories apart the left side of the Rhine (including Belgium). But the Brits refused and asked France to abandon Belgium witch was a provocation.
It is normal that you've never been told about it: after 1815 Germany got Prussified and everything was done to make the Germans hate France and forget that we were allied against the Prussians and the coalitions of all the other crowned tyrans of Europe.

[roland]

Yeah sure, he wasn't a dictator, he was just the Emperor of a semi-dictatorial country (no wait, forget the "semi") and was the proud owner of such democratic titles like "King of Italy". And yes, Nappy wanted peace. A peace which would make him ruler of Europe (or at least ruler of France after everything went bad).
So, in a weird way you're actually right. rofl

There was nothing to compare between the Liberty and Equality the French (and french allies) enjoyed and the old Monarchy system of the rest of Europe (with a few exception like Britain or Holland)
The trouble is "just" that it was war and in war there is conscription, but isn't it normal to fight to defend Liberty ?
There was also restrictions of commerce (continental blockade), this I agree was a mistake.

After the defeat there was a big repression all over Europe to restore the monarchies and church's power and make the people forget the Republican ideas.
The aristocrat and cleric's propaganda of the time worked beyond expectations it seems.

[kitatatsumi]

i know many people are irritated by the 'what if' scenarios, but there is a lot of good information here on MP.net, and i honestly enjoy, and learn a lot from reading these discussions. I never considered a lot of these points.:)
¬just wanted to show some support and appreciation.

[matsalleh18]

If the Germans won the war,well i think i would be talking Japanese,because most probally jap capture AussieLand.

Just a Question do you think there would be any problems in the Middle-East if The germans won?

[Freibier]

You laugh a lot
Yeah, because you're too funny

but it remain that it is true: it is Britain that stubbornly always refused peace and funded coalitions again and again.
Before the campaign of Russia, at the top of Napoleon's power, there were talks of peace with the British. Napoleon was ready to give up all the conquered territories apart the left side of the Rhine (including Belgium). But the Brits refused and asked France to abandon Belgium witch was a provocation. The brits and their german king were right on ze money to block the french from legally keeping the stolen territories

It is normal that you've never been told about it: after 1815 Germany got Prussified and everything was done to make the Germans hate France and forget that we were allied against the Prussians and the coalitions of all the other crowned tyrans of Europe.We were never allies, you french were our sworn enemies for centuries.
(You invaded the small german states over and over again, you invaded german territory in the thirty years war for no other reason than satisfy your decadent kings lust for power. Also later you started the war in 1870/71 over a telegramm, just to give a few examples.)
Napoleon just forced the small german states into a coalition. That's why they all turned against france when they had the chance.
There was some real fascination for Napoleon and his legal system in theory but that faded as became clear that all the liberties from the code napoleon never really applied for anyone other than ze french. Outside of France, Napoleon was just a nepotist and tyrant.

It was only since Charles de Gaule and Konrad Adenauer that we became good friends and allies.

[Guerrier_Franc]

Yeah sure, he wasn't a dictator, he was just the Emperor of a semi-dictatorial country (no wait, forget the "semi")

It doesn't mean he was a dictator
After years of revolutions civils wars, France needed a stable power to protect the new republic against all threats externals and internals of course but also to gather french people.
So Senat proclaimed Napoleon "Emperor of the French",
after during refendum french people elected Napoleon "Emperor of the French".




and was the proud owner of such democratic titles like "King of Italy".

You know a king isn't always a dictator....
Napoleon introduced many reforms in Italy, constitutions civil cod secularism beginning of unification etc
it's the origin of Risorgimento



And yes, Nappy wanted peace. A peace which would make him ruler of Europe (or at least ruler of France after everything went bad).
So, in a weird way you're actually right. rofl

Yes Napoleon wanted peace.

After defeat of second coalition he made peace with Britain in 1802 peace of amien.
But in 1803 Britain declared war to France.

1805 British prime minister William Pitt paid a new coalition (Austria Russia) enventually defeated at Austerlitz by Napoleon


1806 1807 new coalition against France (Prussia Russia) Napoleon defeated Prussian at Iena 1806 and Russian at Friedland 1807
Russian signed peace with Napoleonic France at Tilsit 1807.
But in 1812 Russia didn't respect anymore treaty of peace so...

In 1809 new coalition mainly Austria paid by Britain against France,
Yet Austrian Emperor said 4 years before just after Austerlitz he didn't want anymore the war against France....

1812 1814 new coalition against France mainly Russia Austria Prussia

1815 french people didn't want the king Louis XVIII imposed to France by coalition,
Napoleon returned to France acclaimed by french people and declared he wanted peace but a new european coalition (the seventh.....) declared him an outlaw and we know the end.

[Guerrier_Franc]

Yeah, because you're too funny
The brits and their german king were right on ze money to block the french from legally keeping the stolen territories
We were never allies, you french were our sworn enemies for centuries.
(You invaded the small german states over and over again, you invaded german territory in the thirty years war for no other reason than satisfy your decadent kings lust for power. Also later you started the war in 1870/71 over a telegramm, just to give a few examples.)
Napoleon just forced the small german states into a coalition. That's why they all turned against france when they had the chance.

It's not completly true
for exemple Bavaria was a great allied of France during centuries.



Outside of France, Napoleon was just a nepotist and tyrant.

Wrong, look at the Polish anthem

[roland]

Napoleon just forced the small german states into a coalition. That's why they all turned against france when they had the chance.


Too easy. What's true is that in the end they were fed up of endless wars but so were the french.
You can't reduce all this period in only the end.
The German people was more affraid of the Prussians than of the French.


There was some real fascination for Napoleon and his legal system in theory but that faded as became clear that all the liberties from the code napoleon never really applied for anyone other than ze french.


never heard about it. I'm pretty sure that French and alllies were treated just the same way. Conscription was just probably more strict for the French.



Outside of France, Napoleon was just a nepotist and tyrant.


Yeah, and the kings before were great democrats right ? so it's strange the Republicans were acclaimed when they liberated the Germans from there aristocrats and clerics.



It was only since Charles de Gaule and Konrad Adenauer that we became good friends and allies.

Good but a comon school history book remain to be written it seems.
Too many history manipulation sh:t (not an only anglo speciality, it seems the Germans are good at this too p-))
I've heard of a project for a comon history book a while ago, I don't know how it is of this project now. A good idea worth trying me think.

[Pleonasm]

There was nothing to compare between the Liberty and Equality the French (and french allies) enjoyed and the old Monarchy system of the rest of Europe (with a few exception like Britain or Holland)
The trouble is "just" that it was war and in war there is conscription, but isn't it normal to fight to defend Liberty ?
There was also restrictions of commerce (continental blockade), this I agree was a mistake.

After the defeat there was a big repression all over Europe to restore the monarchies and church's power and make the people forget the Republican ideas.
The aristocrat and cleric's propaganda of the time worked beyond expectations it seems.Look, I have nothing against the ideals of the French Revolution - far from it! - but we all know that theory and practice aren't always the same. And although the French state was much more "modern" (surely on paper and to a certain degree in reality) this didn't give him the right to wage war across whole of Europe and this is what he began to do at the 20th of April 1792. And, yes, for the ordinary people the Restauration was a severe and pitiable set back, I agree.

It doesn't mean he was a dictator
After years of revolutions civils wars, France needed a stable power to protect the new republic against all threats externals and internals of course but also to gather french people.[...]I don't like to use terms which prevailing meaning is coined today ("dictator") in the historical context of the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries, but I think we can agree that Napoleon Bonaparte had a very authoritative style, he was ready to employ the most atrocious means but he was also willing to introduce major improvements. Certainly a debatable person.

After defeat of second coalition he made peace with Britain in 1802 peace of amien.
But in 1803 Britain declared war to France.Right, Britain is to blame for its declaration of war against France, but Napoleon should have known that his interference in the Haitian Revolution wasn't really a sign of "friendship and good unterstanding".

As for the third, fourth and fifth coalition: Right, these were attacks on France, but France wasn't the cuddly state of the epoch either. There is a reason why half of Germany was very eager to expel the French in 1813.


But in 1812 Russia didn't respect anymore treaty of peace so...Yeah, dirty Russkies. Their economy was only impaired because of Nappy's megalomaniac (and not that effective) continental system and they had good reasons to fear Napoleon's adventures in Poland...

...So Napoleon invaded them.


1807 1808 in Peninsula Portugal was allied to Britain and received British weapons at its ports.Filthy Portuguese, they didn't want to listen to French wishes but to trade according to their own will. :roll:

1812 1814 new coalition against France mainly Russia Austria PrussiaWhat did you expect? You just invaded Russia with 600'000 men and failed badly, sure that almost everyone jumped at the chance to free himself of the French domination.

1815 french people didn't want the king Louis XVIII imposed to France by coalition,
Napoleon returned to France acclaimed by french people and declared he wanted peace but a new european coalition (the seventh.....) declared him an outlaw and we know the end.After all the shiet of the past 15 years you expect the European powers to trust Napoleon?!

[GodlessAmerica!]

Yeah, how silly of him. He should have left numerous Soviet armies untouched right beneath a not too well guarded flank. Sounds reasonable.
:)Yeah, he should also forgot to carry out regrouping - wait for infantry which fell back, transfer divisions from North-West direction. "Oh, f*ck it guys! Lets just take Moscow!":)

[GodlessAmerica!]

No, it wasn't. Post your sources. What the Soviet Union received from Western states it paid for. That's called trade. If you are referring to the period of 1941-1945, the aid was mostly intended to make up for the loss of the Ukrainian industrial region, the Donets basin, Belarus, the underperforming factories of Leningrad (due to the siege) and the loss of a population base of sixty million (among them many skilled workers) in the occupied territories. As I said, this economically 'retarded' state outproduced the Germans having suffered the above economic losses. And that had nothing to do with Lend Lease, which began making its presence known towards the end of 1942 and in 1943.



Rubbish! None of that was available in 1941. The Western stuff that was there was bought before the war. I know of no historian that holds your point of view on this topic. Start presenting sources!



Which there wasn't, during the period that the Germans were advancing.



This is mistaken. The diversion of formations of the AGC towards Kiev (which is what I believe you intended to say, as they were headed for Moscow from the start of the war) was not absurd. Kiev housed the remnants of the Western Military Distrct - more than eight hundred thousand troops with significant materiel support. Had the Germans not eliminated this enormous concentration, AGC could have found its logistical lifeline cut during the advance on Moscow. It was sound military thinking, based on the belief that the RKKA (Red Army) was already, for the most part, defeated. Hitler should not be faulted for holding a belief that the majority of his General Staff held.



Why would the Italian fleet tie up the 'Medit'? How would they stop them from moving up to the British Isles? What of the British airforce? Where is the merchant marine or transport fleet to transfer your magical Sealion invasion force? How would around the clock air cover be maintained? How would logistical support be guaranteed?



How did they do so?



Your understanding of the WW2 Soviet Union (the 'food shortages' were over by 1936, let alone 1941...) is, at best, highly flawed and significantly fragmented.



Did I? What do you think a permanent loss is? I said 45,000 permanent casualties in France. That's dead and missing. And there were more than 300,000 permanent casualties in the Soviet Union during the first six months of active operations. Where do you get that 71,000 from? My source is Rudiger Overmans. What is yours?



In every month the average daily permanent loss was higher than a thousand. Therefore, you are mistaken. And badly mistaken! As for the tone, I have little time for your chauvinistic, offtopic babble. Aside from looking ignorant by not having accurate numbers, your spiel is simply flat-out annoying.



And the Germans suffered 302,000 'deads' in the Soviet Union in 1941, and more than 600,000 wounded.



Ahh, a source. Finally. And what does your French book ('The Heroic Sacrifice of the French Army'?) claim as its source?

Because I have a German historian putting German losses in Russia as four times higher during the period in question.



They were exhausted in neither France nor the Soviet Union after a month of combat...



So Case Blau and the Kursk operation (the latter with more than 900,000 German Wehrmacht and SS troops participating) don't count?



Read Niall Ferguson's 'The Pity of War'. Perhaps you will be convinced that 1918 had little to do with 1939.



Not really. Post-war Germany had its share of problems, but it actually performed well economically until 1921. The disaster that followed had other causes, and, in turn, so did 1933...



Actually, that's a bit of a myth. The graduating classes of each of the war years outnumbered the permanent losses of the field army.



I agree. They were very naive. And also fairly powerless! They went into the negotiations having already determined that peace was to be bought at any price. They negotiated from the position of the defeated party, sadly.

Lokos

Bravo, Lokos!:) You relieve me from disprooving all their rubbish!
By the way did you read Ospreys "Moscow 1941, Hitlers first defeat" ? The impact of weather on course of German offensive is very well summed up in this book.

[GodlessAmerica!]

The last chance for Germany to win in the Ost Front was "Case Blue" IMO.
No, the last chance was "Typhoon". The "Blau" was doomed to failure. The objectives were too ambitious and didn't correspond to abilities.

[Kilgor]

No, the last chance was "Typhoon". The "Blau" was doomed to failure. The objectives were too ambitious and didn't correspond to abilities.

Considering how close ze Germans were capturing Stalingrad, thats a questionable statement. Its capture might have not "won" them the war, but made things different.

[Bombtrack]

WW2: The Germans would have won if..

http://www.me-thinks.com/pix/shark.jpg

[GodlessAmerica!]

Considering how close ze Germans were capturing Stalingrad, thats a questionable statement.

If you ask me, I think for Russians stratigecally it was much more advantegious to surrender Stalingrad and decoy Germans deeper to the South, before launching counter-offensive. But unfortunally because of Stalins stupid ambitions it didnt happen.

[Bombtrack]

If you ask me, I think for Russians stratigecally it was much more advantegious to surrender Stalingrad and decoy Germans deeper to the South, before launching counter-offensive. But unfortunally because of Stalins stupid ambitions it didnt happen.

Yeah, what a stupid idiot.
Who won that thing anyway?

[Kilgor]

If you ask me, I think for Russians stratigecally it was much more advantegious to surrender Stalingrad and decoy Germans deeper to the South, before launching counter-offensive. But unfortunally because of Stalins stupid ambitions it didnt happen.

Street fighting in Stalingrad while causing horrific soviet causalities, blunted the German trump card of armour and CAS and subjected them to night fighting and extremely close combat.

If Stalingrad had fallen it would have been a huge blow morally and strategically.
The fight over the city was not all about pride.

[GodlessAmerica!]

Street fighting in Stalingrad while causing horrific soviet causalities, blunted the German trump card of armour and CAS and subjected them to night fighting and extremely close combat.

No objections to this part. Just note that German casualties were far from "moderate" too.


If Stalingrad had fallen it would have been a huge blow morally and strategically.
The fight over the city was not all about pride.

The "moral blow" would not excel "blows" from loss of Kiev or Minsk, for instance. Stratigecally, while made enormous sacrifices, Russians had won nothing. The result of Russian winter counter-offensive could be much more disasterous for Germans, in case Stalingrad had been left. The only reason, why Stalingrad was defended so desperately, was it beared the name of cheif. And I think except Stalin himself very few people thought of it as something special.
Anyway If you still believe in "strategical importance" of city of Stalin, Im curious to hear your arguments.

[KoTeMoRe]

Apart from rabid anti-Sovietism you mean?

[Kilgor]

No objections to this part. Just note that German casualties were far from "moderate" too.



The "moral blow" would not excel "blows" from loss of Kiev or Minsk, for instance. Stratigecally, while made enormous sacrifices, Russians had won nothing. The result of Russian winter counter-offensive could be much more disasterous for Germans, in case Stalingrad had been left. The only reason, why Stalingrad was defended so desperately, was it beared the name of cheif. And I think except Stalin himself very few people thought of it as something special.
Anyway If you still believe in "strategical importance" of city of Stalin, Im curious to hear your arguments.

German casualties were horrific and unsustainable.

Stalingrad was defended so strongly because if it fell, it would allow the Germans the defensive line of the Volga while they headed to the oilfields and control of this vital shipping route.


KoTeMoRe Apart from rabid anti-Sovietism you mean?
Given the number of apologists here, it is needed.

[KoTeMoRe]

German casualties were horrific and unsustainable.

Stalingrad was defended so strongly because if it fell, it would allow the Germans the defensive line of the Volga while they headed to the oilfields and control of this vital shipping route.


Given the number of apologists here, it is needed.

Bogus...111. Now we're speaking of post war propaganda.

Sure read again MP.net.

[GodlessAmerica!]

..control of this vital shipping route..

Germans had reached Volga on 23th of August. On the same day they managed to sink few transport wessels with refugees. From that moment right to the end of battle the shipping on Volga was interrupt.


Stalingrad was defended so strongly because if it fell, it would allow the Germans the defensive line of the Volga while they headed to the oilfields

Exactly, Stalingrad was never primary goal of German offensive. And if it had been captured, germans would resume their offensive further South, according to the initial plan. If Im not mistaken their next target should be Astrakhan.
In this case all what Russians had to do is to, winter come, strike along the Don, smash Hungarian and Italian troops which was deployed there, continue advance deep in germans rear, cutting supply lines and capturing airfields, reach the mouth of river Don and thus cut off entire Group Army South.
As I said before this Stalingrad "slaughter" was absolutely unnecessary. The Russians should starve out Germans instead.

[KoTeMoRe]

Germans had reached Volga on 23th of August. On the same day they managed to sink few transport wessels with refugees. From that moment to the end of battle the shipping on Volga was interrupt.



Right, Stalingrad was never primary goal of German offensive. And if it had been captured, germans would resume their offensive further South, according to the initial plan. If Im not mistaken their next target should be Astrakhan.
In this case all what Russians had to do is to, winter come, strike along the Don, smash Hungarian and Italian troops which was deployed there, continue advance deep in germans rear, cutting supply lines and capturing airfields, reach the mouth of river Don and thus cut off Group Army South.
As I said before this Stalingrad "slaughter" was absolutely unnecessary. The Germans could be starved out instead.

Like a second Crimea...

[GodlessAmerica!]

Like a second Crimea...

Could you please write in detail. I dont understand your obscure comments.

[KoTeMoRe]

Could you please write in detail. I dont understand your obscure comments.


There was a soviet joke describing occupied Crimea as the biggest POW camp during WW2. The same could have been said about an occupied Stalingrad.

Sorry for my opacity.

[IMTT]

Held off operation Barbarosa, killed Stalin blamed the English, kept and maintained what he had after Chamberland departed for a long while. Made friends and murdered all enemies secertly. Used the Jewish citizens didn't enslave and murder them. After all who were the best we and the Russians had to develop the Bomb. Lastly lisen to his Generals. Of course He being Hitler had to be Hitler. Lets not forget we cheated and the English dragged us (The USA) into this thing again.

Just my worthless 2 cents

[Billy No Mates]

The English dragged you in?,how beastly of us to put the Japanese up to attacking you and making Hitler declare war on you.....

[jklv]

Hitler would have won if he used all of German resources to increase technology until reaching the weapons of mass destruction capability. Then attack a couple of countries so the rest would surrender p-)
Germany had awesome engineers (and still has).

[Billy No Mates]

Hitler would have won if he used all of German resources to increase technology until reaching the weapons of mass destruction capability. Then attack a couple of countries so the rest would surrender p-)
Germany had awesome engineers (and still has).

But a lot of his resources were Jewish and rather than employ them he diverted resources to destroy them .

[GodlessAmerica!]

But a lot of his resources were Jewish

Really? And what were they? Just curious.

[Billy No Mates]

People,craftsmen,scientists,workers....it would have been better to use rather than abuse such assets .

[Lokos]

Considering how close ze Germans were capturing Stalingrad, thats a questionable statement. Its capture might have not "won" them the war, but made things different.

Stalingrad was worthless, strategically. To the Soviets it was worthless as soon as the Germans began interdicting the traffic on the Volga - even as a centre of industrial production it was only of nominal value. To the Germans it was worthless from day one. Blau did not hinge on the capture of Stalingrad. Read the original objectives of the operation, before professing your opinions. The splitting of Army Group South into A and B made the divergent axis of attack southward and eastward more susceptible to stalling, logistical overstretch, and made these forces more vulnerable than they had to be.


Stalingrad was defended so strongly because if it fell, it would allow the Germans the defensive line of the Volga while they headed to the oilfields and control of this vital shipping route.



What? Have a look at an operational map of the Stalingrad defensive operation. The Don bend was the hinge on which any German defensive line would rest. The Volga was not useable as any defensive line, especially since the Soviets had held flanking positions from the start of the operation until its finish. Even in terms of the Don, the Soviets held bridgeheads and strongpoints along most of the river. Forces earmarked and husbanded for Operation Uranus and Ring had jump-off points across the Volga, on the western shore. These were massive formations.

Lokos

[GodlessAmerica!]

People,craftsmen,scientists,workers....it would have been better to use rather than abuse such assets .

Dont forget that abusing Jewish diaspora Nazis had captured a lot property, and thus covered the expenses on development of their military.

[Guerrier_Franc]

but I think we can agree that Napoleon Bonaparte had a very authoritative style, he was ready to employ the most atrocious means but he was also willing to introduce major improvements. Certainly a debatable person.

Napoleon was much less hard with his soldiers than all others great commanders for this period.
Napoleon was very tolerant with his grognards, there was a friendship between him and his soldiers, in foreign armies soldiers were often treatened with whip.



Yeah, dirty Russkies. Their economy was only impaired because of Nappy's megalomaniac (and not that effective) continental system and they had good reasons to fear Napoleon's adventures in Poland...
...So Napoleon invaded them.


Russia signed the peace at Tilsit in 1807.
Like all peace treaties, it is only valid when two sides respect it.
Russia didn't respect treaty of peace, already in 1809 during Austrian agression against France
In 1812 Russia has chosen alliance with Britain, the worst ennemy of Napoleon
In the same year Russian troops threatened duchy of Poland the allied of France.
So



Filthy Portuguese, they didn't want to listen to French wishes but to trade according to their own will. :roll:

Portugal always been allied with Britain and it was the case during Napoleonic era,
he received British troops and arms, Napoleon didn't accept that
it was against security of France



the French domination.
After all the shiet of the past 15 years you expect the European powers to trust Napoleon?!

This domination was consequence of coalition wars lost against France.
Without these coalitions against him Napoleon wouldn't have dominate Europe.

[zad]

Portugal always been allied with Britain and it was the case during Napoleonic era,
he received British troops and arms, Napoleon didn't accept that
it was against security of France


What about Spain?

[KoTeMoRe]

OT please let this die.

[Lancero]

Portugal always been allied with Britain and it was the case during Napoleonic era,
he received British troops and arms, Napoleon didn't accept that
it was against security of France


Neither did the portuguese accepted all three napoleonic invasions and made sure the french armies returned the way they came. ;)

[Guerrier_Franc]

What about Spain?

Actually France wasn't at war against Spain, the two countries were allies.
In order to go in Portugal Napoleon needed to pass his troops by Spain,
Spanish rulers were allies so they permitted Napoleon to pass his troops by Spain
but at that time there were a huge dynastic problem among Spanish monarchy,
Ferdinand who wanted to be King and Charles IV king of Spain hated themselves and the country was near civil war so they asked Napoleon to resolve this problem to avoid civil war and the Emperor accepted but many among Spanish people were against that and they rebelled against French.
Napoleon was seen as heretic by many Spanish priest, and integrist Church ( Inquisition existed again in Spain at that time ) played an important role in this urprising.

[roland]

It seems to me that the french did big mistakes in Spain and it can be considered as the only clear uncalled act of agression from the allies of this period.

Fact is that at this time, Spain was by far the most backward country of Europe. Like the Talebans. A shame for Europe.
The french knew that to get civilized, Spain needed to get ride of its extremist and backward clergy. so while they were crossing Spain they massacred a lot of clerics on there way. I think that was a friendly initiative from the soldiers, not an official policy. But the Spaniars, instead of thanking the French, got upset and started a fanatic rebellion. Ungratefull may be but one have to admit that massacring the clerics like that, on an allied country, was pretty tactless.

[Billy No Mates]

But the Spaniars, instead of thanking the French, got upset and started a fanatic rebellion. Ungratefull may be but one have to admit that massacring the clerics like that, on an allied country, was pretty tactless.

What ingrates the Spanish were!,fancy resenting civilization imposed by atrocity......

[KoTeMoRe]

What ingrates the Spanish were!,fancy resenting civilization imposed by atrocity......
Actually they did not resented the clerics killings, they resented the rampage made by the Great Army and the presence among its ranks of mameluks...

These and the illegal tactics for the time of killing and mutilation of French officers by Spaniards contributed to a widespread violence among belligerants.

[Dispatcher]

It seems to me that the french did big mistakes in Spain and it can be considered as the only clear uncalled act of agression from the allies of this period.

Fact is that at this time, Spain was by far the most backward country of Europe. Like the Talebans. A shame for Europe.
The french knew that to get civilized, Spain needed to get ride of its extremist and backward clergy. so while they were crossing Spain they massacred a lot of clerics on there way. I think that was a friendly initiative from the soldiers, not an official policy. But the Spaniars, instead of thanking the French, got upset and started a fanatic rebellion. Ungratefull may be but one have to admit that massacring the clerics like that, on an allied country, was pretty tactless.

Boy, does your title suit you.

[theholeinthedonut]

The luxembourgish farmers were as retarded as their spanish counterparts, they also revolted against the philantrophic napoleonic troops!! Savages, such a fuss only because of a few priests and noblemen!!!

Roland you outdid yourself! Respect man!

[Billy No Mates]

The luxembourgish farmers were as retarded as their spanish counterparts, they also revolted against the philantrophic napoleonic troops!! Savages, such a fuss only because of a few priests and noblemen!!!

Roland you outdid yourself! Respect man!

I hope you are suitably ashamed of your forebearers ignorant ingratitude....

[Lancero]

It seems to me that the french did big mistakes in Spain and it can be considered as the only clear uncalled act of agression from the allies of this period.

Fact is that at this time, Spain was by far the most backward country of Europe. Like the Talebans. A shame for Europe.
The french knew that to get civilized, Spain needed to get ride of its extremist and backward clergy. so while they were crossing Spain they massacred a lot of clerics on there way. I think that was a friendly initiative from the soldiers, not an official policy. But the Spaniars, instead of thanking the French, got upset and started a fanatic rebellion. Ungratefull may be but one have to admit that massacring the clerics like that, on an allied country, was pretty tactless.


The fact that the french occupied and pillaged the most important spanish cities and that Napoleon put his brother in the trone of Spain had nothing to do with the peoples rebellion. Obviosly. :roll:

[Freibier]

By that logic, the french were also very ungrateful to rebel against their german overlords in WWII.
Ok, they didn't rebel as much as the spanish and were all around relative quiet minions but you get my point ;)

[theholeinthedonut]

I hope you are suitably ashamed of your forebearers ignorant ingratitude....

I am deeply ashamed! Please Roland accept my humble apologies!

[Guerrier_Franc]

It seems to me that the french did big mistakes in Spain and it can be considered as the only clear uncalled act of agression from the allies of this period.

Fact is that at this time, Spain was by far the most backward country of Europe. Like the Talebans. A shame for Europe.
The french knew that to get civilized, Spain needed to get ride of its extremist and backward clergy. so while they were crossing Spain they massacred a lot of clerics on there way. I think that was a friendly initiative from the soldiers, not an official policy. But the Spaniars, instead of thanking the French, got upset and started a fanatic rebellion. Ungratefull may be but one have to admit that massacring the clerics like that, on an allied country, was pretty tactless.

A civil war in Spain wasn't in french interest and spanish of course.
Napoleon was the last chance to avoid civil war that's why spanish rulers asked him his help.
Don't forget Spain was allied with France and was at war against United Kingdom.
Of course a civil war would have weakened Spain and UK would have easily taken advantage of the situation and British troops would have threatened french borders in south west of France.
For all these reasons and some others, Napoleon couldn't be indifferent to Spanish problems

[Guerrier_Franc]

that Napoleon put his brother in the trone of Spain had nothing to do with the peoples rebellion. Obviosly. :roll:

Actually Charles IV and Ferdinand asked Napoleon to arbitrate their problem and choose who should be king of Spain
Ferdinand ? or Charles ?
Eventually Napoleon chose Ferdinand but internal situation hasn't improved so Napoleon chose his brother to lead Spain, it wasn't exceptionnal at that time.
First
many european countries had foreign dynasties in their trone, for exemple England/Britain had Dutch dynasty at end of 17th century with William of Orange
and just after they had German dynasty house of Hanover
During napoleonic era French marshal Bernadotte became King of Sweden but swedish people didn't rebelled.
and there were many others situations like that.
Plus Spanish monarchy was actually of French ascendancy (house of Bourbon) since 1 century.

Not the problem was Napoleon was seen as heretic by integrists in Spain.

[Freibier]

Well, Napoleon wasn't a nobleman, he was just a upstart poacher that crowned himself and was therefore illegimate.
But this gets silly now, so back to topic or close pleez

[toki]

Well, Napoleon wasn't a nobleman, he was just a upstart poacher that crowned himself and was therefore illegimate.
But this gets silly now, so back to topic or close pleez

What if the Dinos didn't die?

Germany:
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/august24/gifs/mice_smooth.jpg

Allies:
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/august24/gifs/mice_fuzzy.jpg

[Lancero]

Actually Charles IV and Ferdinand asked Napoleon to arbitrate their problem and choose who should be king of Spain Ferdinand ? or Charles ?
Eventually Napoleon chose Ferdinand but internal situation hasn't improved so Napoleon chose his brother to lead Spain, it wasn't exceptionnal at that time.
First many european countries had foreign dynasties in their trone, for exemple England/Britain had Dutch dynasty at end of 17th century with William of Orange and just after they had German dynasty house of Hanover
During napoleonic era French marshal Bernadotte became King of Sweden but swedish people didn't rebelled.
and there were many others situations like that.
Plus Spanish monarchy was actually of French ascendancy (house of Bourbon) since 1 century.

Not the problem was Napoleon was seen as heretic by integrists in Spain.


Funny to have this discussion precisely at the 200 years of the Peninsular War...
I don't know what kind of history they teach in France, but the way I laerned it:
France and Spain were allies since the Treaty of Fountaibleu 1807, and it was under that treaty that they decided between themselfs to divide Portugal in three. France had there the chance to block the harbours to the English and Spain wanted possession of the portuguese fleet. It was under that purpose - and with the portuguese refusal to the Ultimatum - that the spanish alowed the napoleonic armies to pass trought Spain and get to Portugal.
Napoleon convinced the spanish that he had to reeinforce the troops in Portugal and the spanish allowed more french armies in. Those armies made what's now called an 'stealth invasion' - capturing and pillaging the most important spanish cities - taking advantage that most spanish armies were under french command elsewere. A good example his Barcelona: A French column, disguised as a convoy of wounded, took the city convincing the spanish to open the gates and assist the wounded.
The dispute for the spanish trone was nothing more than result of intrigue set up by Napoleon in order to have both contenders (Carlos IV and his son Fernando) abdicate and put his brother on throne - setting the uprising of the people.

[jklv]

But a lot of his resources were Jewish and rather than employ them he diverted resources to destroy them .
Yup, that is why I said he shouldn't have started the war before having overwhelming powers.

[GodlessAmerica!]

Yup, that is why I said he shouldn't have started the war before having overwhelming powers.

Actually they did have overwhelming powers when they started the war (with Poland). If Im not mistaken war with France and UK wasnt in their plans. Hitler didnt want to start WORLD WAR. He just want to take some territories from Poland (like in case with Czechoslovakia before). That were France and Britain who declared war.

[Freibier]

Actually they did have overwhelming powers when they started the war (with Poland). If Im not mistaken war with France and UK wasnt in their plans. Hitler didnt want to start WORLD WAR. He just want to take some territories from Poland (like in case with Czechoslovakia before). That were France and Britain who declared war.
I think war with Britain wasn't planned but France was definately on ze list

[GodlessAmerica!]

I think war with Britain wasn't planned but France was definately on ze list
Could you please elaborate this statement.

[Freibier]

Could you please elaborate this statement.
Hitler wanted a rebuttal for the Treaty of Versailles that was conceived as a primarily french creation.

[GodlessAmerica!]

Hitler wanted a rebuttal for the Treaty of Versailles that was conceived as a primarily french creation.

I meant reference to any documents or statements of german officials which prove that Hitler planned (before 1st September 1939) to invade France.

[Hunterhr]

Yup, that is why I said he shouldn't have started the war before having overwhelming powers.

They never would have had overwhelming power. A few years later and the Soviet Union would have recovered from the effects of the officer purges and been reorganized. Barbarossa wouldn't have gone nearly as well.

[Calanen]

The Germans had about 16 million in the service, all up. The Soviet Union had 34 million, the US and the UK had 11 million apiece. There was no *way* Germany was ever going to win. Stalin wasn't even close to running out of people to send into the fight. Eventually though Germany had no one left. It was a true war of attrition.

So stop dreaming people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

[KoTeMoRe]

The Germans had about 16 million in the service, all up. The Soviet Union had 34 million, the US and the UK had 11 million apiece. There was no *way* Germany was ever going to win. Stalin wasn't even close to running out of people to send into the fight. Eventually though Germany had no one left. It was a true war of attrition.

So stop dreaming people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

The Jewish bullet genocide victims in USSR were at least 1.5 million. The chart is dead wrong on that point.

34 million in service...:roll: at disposal does not mean enlisted...

And the whole heuristical approach to the wiki article is polemical.

I love when 4 sources make an entire encyclopedical article. Great stuff. Go wiki.

[KoTeMoRe]

I think war with Britain wasn't planned but France was definately on ze list

Sure, leaving a part of the Entente Cordiale out of the mess, the whole pivot of Power in Continental Europe and the most fearsome manpower pool unhurt, I mean Hitler was sometimes out of bounds but he knew that part of the story.

Regards.

[GodlessAmerica!]

There was no *way* Germany was ever going to win.

Well I wouldnt say that. Still there was miraculous chance Germany could crash Soviet Union in 1941. I believe after such outcome Churchills "patriotic ardour" would quickly fade away. On the other hand America wouldnt even try to oppose Hitler.


Stalin wasn't even close to running out of people to send into the fight.

In 1941 Soviets were on the knife-edge.
And it was rather evacuation of the industry to the East (and its subsequent deployment) that guaranteed victory.


Eventually though Germany had no one left.

You said by yourself there were 16 million in service, at the same time germans lost 5 million men.

To sum up, victory is reached not when you decemate all military age males of rival country, but rather by occupation of its territory, objects of strategical importance.

[GodlessAmerica!]

never mind....

[CPL Trevoga]

Germany never had a chance against the Motherland. That's just how it is.
But best of Russia and Germany perished in the war, while Anglo-Saxons grew filthy rich.

If Hitler wasn't such a greedy putz and kept Germano-Soviet allience intact, most of the world would be speaking Yidish by now.

[GodlessAmerica!]

Germany never had a chance against the Motherland. That's just how it is.

It would be great if you somehow based your statement.p-)

[Kilgor]

Yeah, All the Soviets had to do was to fire a few warning shots at Ze germans and they tucked their tails between their legs and ran home to hide behind momma's skirt.


But best of Russia and Germany perished in the war, while Anglo-Saxons grew filthy rich.

FYI's those "Anglo-Saxons" ie.. the British, their economy was exhausted and spent by the end of the war, and had to continue rationing for many years after.

[Calanen]

The Jewish bullet genocide victims in USSR were at least 1.5 million. The chart is dead wrong on that point.

34 million in service...:roll: at disposal does not mean enlisted...

And the whole heuristical approach to the wiki article is polemical.

I love when 4 sources make an entire encyclopedical article. Great stuff. Go wiki.

I don't know what your point is about the 34 million. If you think I was saying that all of the 34 million had rifles and were on the front line, I am not sure where you got that impression from.

If you know why any of this wiki information is wrong, say why and quote some alternative sources.

[Calanen]

Eventually though Germany had no one left.


I shouldn't really need to say that this was short hand hyperbole, I of course was not meaning by this comment that there was not a sole man and his rifle left in Germany at the end of the war. What I was saying, that their army had been smashed to pieces, so formerly fearsome units were no longer in existence, and they did not have the human resources to put into tanks, aircraft or replace footsoldiers killed and injured in units.

The fact that only 5 million were dead, does not take into account that many more were injured, or the fact that many units had been so ripped to pieces they could no longer function.

[Lokos]

Calanen:

Your point of view is extremely hindsight-oriented. The fact stands that, in August 1941, the world looked on the cusp of playing host to the undisputed military and economic master of Eurasia; the Greater German Reich. That the Germans subsequently failed to take advantage of their superior economic resources, or that their armies were not employed with sublime foresight, or that their foreign policy was not sufficiently enlightened, these are different matters altogether. Be careful of attributing inevitability to anything. That the Soviet Union survived the summer/fall of 1941 is more a testimony to the incredible efforts of the state and the people to hold it together - and to their insane sacrifices - than it is to any illusory numerical advantages over the Germans.

Looking at numbers alone one cannot gain a sense of the Second World War.

Lokos

[foxtrot023]

Calanen:

Your point of view is extremely hindsight-oriented. The fact stands that, in August 1941, the world looked on the cusp of playing host to the undisputed military and economic master of Eurasia; the Greater German Reich. That the Germans subsequently failed to take advantage of their superior economic resources, or that their armies were not employed with sublime foresight, or that their foreign policy was not sufficiently enlightened, these are different matters altogether. Be careful of attributing inevitability to anything. That the Soviet Union survived the summer/fall of 1941 is more a testimony to the incredible efforts of the state and the people to hold it together - and to their insane sacrifices - than it is to any illusory numerical advantages over the Germans.

Looking at numbers alone one cannot gain a sense of the Second World War.

Lokos

Lokos, the allies had undisputed economic superiority over the axis, a fact that both Japanese and Germans knew

[Kilgor]

Lokos, the allies had undisputed economic superiority over the axis, a fact that both Japanese and Germans knew

Not really.

Germany had the resources, the manpower, the expertise and the whip and it completely frittered it away. Albert Speer made great improvement on things, but by that stage of the war it was too late.

Germany flushed its economic potential completely down the toilet. Even great Britain alone produced equal or more arms than Germany up until 1943.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Germany could have won the a war against 2 super powers but not 3 and definitely not 4 in which it untimely faced.

If it was to have any chance of success it need to have completed Plan Z. Such a fleet would have distracted the Royal Navy from the Med.

As the Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau showed in their respective military operations. Huge resources were needed to remove these threats. Add the planned ships from Plan Z and your looking at a serious navy.

Such a fleet combined with the Italian fleet which had some of the most advanced and most powerful ships afloat would have royally ****ed the RN. As it was the Italian fleet did alright against the RN in the Med.

Better coordination with the Italians in the the conduct of the war effort. Joint Combined Chiefs, strategic resources, and coordinated military operations. This was severely lacking. Germany is planning the invasion of Russia so what do the Italians do? Decide to invade Greece and launch operations in Africa. Real smart. As little as Greece was in the overall effort it's a distraction none the less. The smart option would have been to send the resources to Africa, keep only defensive forces on the frontier with Russia until the British are cleared from Africa and the Med.

With the Med secured, the Kriegsmarina and the Regia Marina could then have been used to blockade the British Isles. Either the Grand Fleet was going to go down in a blaze of glory as I can't see it defeating the combined fleets or stay in port until the UK accepts terms.

The key in my opinion is to put it simply control of the sea lanes. You control the sea lanes everything generally falls into place and somewhere around 1945 to 1950 then go for Russia.

Even if Russia was planning to launch an offensive I doubt such an offensive would have gone ahead if the German and Italian fleets had knocked the UK out of the war and their leaders were operating on the same page. It's to big a task. As Germany proved when it tried it.

[GodlessAmerica!]

FYI's those "Anglo-Saxons" ie.. the British, their economy was exhausted and spent by the end of the war, and had to continue rationing for many years after.

In fact he is right. The damage suffered by Germany and especially by Soviet Union could hardly be compared with one suffered by USA and UK.


Lokos, the allies had undisputed economic superiority over the axis, a fact that both Japanese and Germans knew

Yes, but they would never dare to use it, in case SU had fallen.
The Allies could oppose Germans only at sea, but definately not on land.


I shouldn't really need to say that this was short hand hyperbole, I of course was not meaning by this comment that there was not a sole man and his rifle left in Germany at the end of the war. What I was saying, that their army had been smashed to pieces, so formerly fearsome units were no longer in existence, and they did not have the human resources to put into tanks, aircraft or replace footsoldiers killed and injured in units.

Sorry, but in your previous post you clearly said that Russians won because of larger population. Thats incorrect. It was command economy that had decisive importance. As Lokos and Kilgor said Germans had underestimated SU and were punished for their arrogance. While they were resting on their laurels, Russians had mobilised all their resources to hold out and eventually had seized initiative. When Germans finally came in sence, it was too late.

[Lokos]

Lokos, the allies had undisputed economic superiority over the axis, a fact that both Japanese and Germans knew

Like Kilgor said (I never thought I'd utter those words), not really. One only need to look at Germany's industrial capacity, its European infrastructure, its potential resource base etc. to see that it was economically on a similar footing to the Allies (and far superior to the Soviets).

Have a look at R. J. Overy's 'War and Economy in the Third Reich' and Mark Harrison's 'The Economics of World War Two: Six Great Powers in Comparison'. Both are useful tools in judging German economic potential, as opposed to its actualized performance.


The Allies could oppose Germans only at sea, but definately not on land.


That's not entirely true. The Western Allies performed adequately enough from 1943 onwards. We can only speculate on the possibility of Allied victory in land combat against the entirety of the Wehrmacht were the Eastern Front a nonissue. But then we are engaging in pure speculation, and that's not as useful as it could be. :)

Lokos

[KoTeMoRe]

You as a whole lot of people here are dismissing one eventually vital fact...the german Reich was an Ideological power embarked on an ideological war and was moving according to ideologically set lines. One can hardly imagine Germany going for the Middle east while the USSR was by far a much more interesting conquest.

If you are going to think about this war ex nihilo and in a purely military/operational manner you will fail to get the whole point. One cannot wait until 1950 to "go for Russia", Soviet Union (especially knowing the whole delay will cost you a bunch of trouble in the occupied regions and a real threat of communist political build up in the said regions). I can think of a whole range of issues, from economical collapse (hyperdeflation of the Reichsmark, then back to hyper inflation), looting, permanent tension with the locals, with the USSR, the USA. And If you manage to corner the UK this could happen without japanese involvement (wich btw goes back to the problem you did wanted to avoid-USA out of the war).

Kilgor:: I'm affraid you're wrong, not completely but wrong none the less.

Edit err I was replying to minardiau.

[GodlessAmerica!]

Germany could have won the a war against 2 super powers but not 3 and definitely not 4 in which it untimely faced.

If it was to have any chance of success it need to have completed Plan Z. Such a fleet would have distracted the Royal Navy from the Med.

As the Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau showed in their respective military operations. Huge resources were needed to remove these threats. Add the planned ships from Plan Z and your looking at a serious navy.

Such a fleet combined with the Italian fleet which had some of the most advanced and most powerful ships afloat would have royally ****ed the RN. As it was the Italian fleet did alright against the RN in the Med.

Better coordination with the Italians in the the conduct of the war effort. Joint Combined Chiefs, strategic resources, and coordinated military operations. This was severely lacking. Germany is planning the invasion of Russia so what do the Italians do? Decide to invade Greece and launch operations in Africa. Real smart. As little as Greece was in the overall effort it's a distraction none the less. The smart option would have been to send the resources to Africa, keep only defensive forces on the frontier with Russia until the British are cleared from Africa and the Med.

With the Med secured, the Kriegsmarina and the Regia Marina could then have been used to blockade the British Isles. Either the Grand Fleet was going to go down in a blaze of glory as I can't see it defeating the combined fleets or stay in port until the UK accepts terms.

The key in my opinion is to put it simply control of the sea lanes. You control the sea lanes everything generally falls into place and somewhere around 1945 to 1950 then go for Russia.

Even if Russia was planning to launch an offensive I doubt such an offensive would have gone ahead if the German and Italian fleets had knocked the UK out of the war and their leaders were operating on the same page. It's to big a task. As Germany proved when it tried it.

I think you overestimate participation of GB in war. Like it or not, but the outcome of WW2 was decided in the land of Russia. Not in Mediterranean area. Its a fact!

[GodlessAmerica!]

That's not entirely true. The Western Allies performed adequately enough from 1943 onwards. We can only speculate on the possibility of Allied victory in land combat against the entirety of the Wehrmacht were the Eastern Front a nonissue. But then we are engaging in pure speculation, and that's not as useful as it could be. :)
Lokos

Actually I was speculating on Allies performance in case of defeat of SU.:) I just have some problems with tenses so sometimes you can get me wrong.:)
Anyway I have a question to you: What in your opinion would be the course of events if SU had been defeated?

[Kilgor]

Actually I was speculating on Allies performance in case of defeat of SU.:)
Anyway I have a question to you: What in your opinion would be the course of events if SU had been defeated.

The book "fatherland" would be a good example.

[KoTeMoRe]

The book "fatherland" would be a good example.

Fatherland is a roman with a vaguely descriptive 3rd reich background. It's like you used Tom Clancy for historical research.:roll:

[GodlessAmerica!]

The book "fatherland" would be a good example.
Could you please "remind" me plot in few words?:)

[Kilgor]

From wiki

Throughout the novel, Harris gradually explains the historical development of the society. According to the novel's version of history, the German armies on the Eastern Front are stopped at the gates of Moscow at the end of 1941, as in our history. Defeated in battle but not demoralized, they launch a second major offensive into the Caucasus in 1942, cutting the flow of oil to the Red Army. The first point of divergence is that this second offensive is far more successful. With its armies immobilised, the Soviet Union surrenders in 1943.

The second major point of divergence is that around the same time, German intelligence (in a way never explained) learns the British have cracked the Enigma code, which is leading to the sinking of their submarines. They withdraw their submarines from the Atlantic temporarily and send false intelligence to lure the British fleet to destruction. The U-Boat campaign against the United Kingdom resumes, starving Britain into accepting a humiliating armistice in 1944. Winston Churchill, King George VI and other prominent British officials are forced into exile in Canada. Edward VIII regains the throne and a puppet government is installed.

Germany tests its first atom bomb in 1946, and fires a "V-3" missile that explodes above New York City, to demonstrate Germany's ability to attack the continental United States with long-range missiles. Following this demonstration of power, the United States signs a peace treaty with Germany. This results in the Third Reich being one of the two superpowers of the world, along with the US, which defeated Japan much as in our own history.

Having achieved victory in Europe, Germany annexes Eastern Europe and most of the western Soviet Union into the Greater German Reich. Following the signing of the Treaty of Rome, Western Europe and Scandinavia are corralled into a pro-German trading bloc, the European Community. The surviving areas of the USSR become engaged in an endless guerrilla war with German forces in the Ural Mountains. Military leaders and Nazi officials choose to keep up the guerilla war because it amounts to hands-on training that keeps the Wehrmacht sharp and versatile. By 1964, the United States and the Greater German Reich are caught in a Cold War and an arms race to develop more sophisticated nuclear weapons and space technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_(novel)

[Kilgor]

Fatherland is a roman with a vaguely descriptive 3rd reich background. It's like you used Tom Clancy for historical research.:roll:

Eeer, the point was even if the SU was defeated, it would be the mother of guerrilla wars

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I think you overestimate participation of GB in war. Like it or not, but the outcome of WW2 was decided in the land of Russia. Not in Mediterranean area. Its a fact!

I'm not discounting the Russian effort at all. I'm merely theorizing that the Med could have been the most significant theater in knocking out the British the war.

Like it or not. The fact the Commonwealth did not get knocked out of the war proved to be a major blunder by the Axis Powers. Opening up the Med frees the Italian Navy for operations in the Atlantic, possibility of Turkey joining the Axis which I'm sure would have done so resolve long standing issues Turkey (Ottomons) have had with Russia.

This ties into what I wrote about better coordination in the Axis High Command and better use of resources.

[GodlessAmerica!]

I'm not discounting the Russian effort at all. I'm merely theorizing that the Med could have been the most significant theater in knocking out the British the war.

You said that if not Allied military supplies, SU would fail to win. Thats incorrect. In fact Germany lost war in 1941, next four years were nothing just agony. Turn in war happened before Allies were able to affect it somehow. Moreover in the course of war major share of SU military needs were satisfied by domestic industry.
Like it or not.


Like it or not. The fact the Commonwealth did not get knocked out of the war proved to be a major blunder by the Axis Powers.

As I said before initially Hitler was not going to invade Britain or even France. They asked for a troubles by themselves. And got them.p-) Hitler always fixed his eyes on East.


Opening up the Med frees the Italian Navy for operations in the Atlantic, possibility of Turkey joining the Axis which I'm sure would have done so resolve long standing issues Turkey (Ottomons) have had with Russia.
This ties into what I wrote about better coordination in the Axis High Command and better use of resources.

If Hitler delayed attack on SU, Stalin would strike first. That would mean the END, no matter wheather Axis controled Mediterranian or not.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

You said that if not Allied military supplies, SU would fail to win. Thats incorrect. In fact Germany lost war in 1941, next four years were nothing just agony. Turn in war happened before Allies were able to affect it somehow. Moreover in the course of war major share of SU military needs were satisfied by domestic industry.
Like it or not.

I'm not disputing that fact. I however never mentioned Allied military supplies. I only mentioned the blockading of the British Isles to get the British out of the war.

As I said before initially Hitler was not going to invade Britain or even France. They asked for a troubles by themselves. And got them.p-) Hitler always fixed his eyes on East.

Maybe not in the course of the war the way it played out. But this is a what if topic but I however never mentioned Germany invading the British Isles. Merely starving them into submission.

If Hitler delayed attack on SU, Stalin would strike first. That would mean the END, no matter wheather Axis controled Mediterranian or not.

Whether or not Stalin was planning to attack or not is academic. What I suggested as a possible "what if" scenario makes any moves by Russia highly unlikely. A German/Italian axis cooperating on a level similar to the Western Allied levels of cooperation makes for an even bigger nightmare scenario for Russia for these reasons.

1. More troops, planes, tanks, logistical needs being made available for operations and the likely hood of Italian factories producing German equipment. Vis a vis the UK/US

2. Germany still taking the brunt of the Red Army but with the Italians having gained the added experience of the German officer corps, not having forces tied up in the med, possibly using German equipment could have proved very useful in less contested area, mopping up operations and possibly supplying additional armies once the reformed Italian army is ready.

3. A clear Mediterranean Sea and German/Italian victory over UK/France opens the possibility for Turkish entrance into the war on the side of the Axis and thus creating a 2/3rd front for the Russians to deal with. Turkey was definitely no friend of the Russians and as WW1 showed they could have tied down considerable Russian forces.


At the end of the day it's a what if. In a nutshell my answer to the question is that with better cooperation, allowing for completion of Plan Z, staff exchanges for offices, and a shift to the Mediterranean using all available resources until the UK is out of it. They could have won.

It basically follows the premise of "Why start another war until the current one is finished?"

It's dogged nations with land borders since armies existed. Two front wars have rarely ended in the favor of the aggressor or defender for that matter.

[GodlessAmerica!]

I'm not disputing that fact. I however never mentioned Allied military supplies. I only mentioned the blockading of the British Isles to get the British out of the war.

Alright... But you said:


Even if Russia was planning to launch an offensive I doubt such an offensive would have gone ahead if the German and Italian fleets had knocked the UK out of the war and their leaders were operating on the same page.

and


The fact the Commonwealth did not get knocked out of the war proved to be a major blunder by the Axis Powers.

How do you suppose me to interpret these statements? If you say so that means UK rendered some kind of unvaluable assistance to SU. If you didnt mean military suppllies, then what?


Maybe not in the course of the war the way it played out. But this is a what if topic but I however never mentioned Germany invading the British Isles. Merely starving them into submission

Nor did I, I just wanted to say that Hitler didnt want war in Western Europe. He tried to end it as soon as possible. Why do you think he let Allies to escape from Dunkirk?


Whether or not Stalin was planning to attack or not is academic.

I assure you that Joseph Vissarionich was preparing his own atack very intensively. Even before begining of WW2 SU annualy produce thousands of tanks and planes. Soviets just didnt complete the forming of invading force at time. Adolf Aloisevich had finished off France too quicly and took Stalin by surprise.
Thats why any advantages from controlling Med would be nothing comparing with missed chance of sudden attack on SU.

[foxtrot023]

Not really.

Germany had the resources, the manpower, the expertise and the whip and it completely frittered it away. Albert Speer made great improvement on things, but by that stage of the war it was too late.

Germany flushed its economic potential completely down the toilet. Even great Britain alone produced equal or more arms than Germany up until 1943.


Like Kilgor said (I never thought I'd utter those words), not really. One only need to look at Germany's industrial capacity, its European infrastructure, its potential resource base etc. to see that it was economically on a similar footing to the Allies (and far superior to the Soviets).

Have a look at R. J. Overy's 'War and Economy in the Third Reich' and Mark Harrison's 'The Economics of World War Two: Six Great Powers in Comparison'. Both are useful tools in judging German economic potential, as opposed to its actualized performance.

Lokos

I will agree that they had the potential (and I am talking only about Germany here) however it was never fullfilled. Actual economic output and manpower were very different.

An I am sure both of you would agree that even then it would have been mighty hard for Germany to convince conquered nations to a. produce at the same rate as Germany, and b. fight for Germany with vigor. Surely there were volunteers from all of Europe in the Waffen SS, and deutchvolks from many places serving in the Heer, however those numbers are insignificant when compared to Soviet and US manpower reserves

[Lokos]

I will agree that they had the potential (and I am talking only about Germany here) however it was never fullfilled. Actual economic output and manpower were very different.

An I am sure both of you would agree that even then it would have been mighty hard for Germany to convince conquered nations to a. produce at the same rate as Germany, and b. fight for Germany with vigor. Surely there were volunteers from all of Europe in the Waffen SS, and deutchvolks from many places serving in the Heer, however those numbers are insignificant when compared to Soviet and US manpower reserves

In economic terms, I spoke only of potentials.

As for the manpower reserves, I did not speak of them.

Lokos

[Mr X]

If the Germans won WW2 there would be a serious shortage of Jews.
Oh and Jipseys, Homeo******s, Slavs and etc etc.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

If the Germans won WW2 there would be a serious shortage of Jews.
Oh and Jipseys, Homeo******s, Slavs and etc etc.

don't leave out mentally handicapped and "other inferior races"

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

From wiki

Throughout the novel, Harris gradually explains the historical development of the society. According to the novel's version of history, the German armies on the Eastern Front are stopped at the gates of Moscow at the end of 1941, as in our history. Defeated in battle but not demoralized, they launch a second major offensive into the Caucasus in 1942, cutting the flow of oil to the Red Army. The first point of divergence is that this second offensive is far more successful. With its armies immobilised, the Soviet Union surrenders in 1943.

The second major point of divergence is that around the same time, German intelligence (in a way never explained) learns the British have cracked the Enigma code, which is leading to the sinking of their submarines. They withdraw their submarines from the Atlantic temporarily and send false intelligence to lure the British fleet to destruction. The U-Boat campaign against the United Kingdom resumes, starving Britain into accepting a humiliating armistice in 1944. Winston Churchill, King George VI and other prominent British officials are forced into exile in Canada. Edward VIII regains the throne and a puppet government is installed.

Germany tests its first atom bomb in 1946, and fires a "V-3" missile that explodes above New York City, to demonstrate Germany's ability to attack the continental United States with long-range missiles. Following this demonstration of power, the United States signs a peace treaty with Germany. This results in the Third Reich being one of the two superpowers of the world, along with the US, which defeated Japan much as in our own history.

Having achieved victory in Europe, Germany annexes Eastern Europe and most of the western Soviet Union into the Greater German Reich. Following the signing of the Treaty of Rome, Western Europe and Scandinavia are corralled into a pro-German trading bloc, the European Community. The surviving areas of the USSR become engaged in an endless guerrilla war with German forces in the Ural Mountains. Military leaders and Nazi officials choose to keep up the guerilla war because it amounts to hands-on training that keeps the Wehrmacht sharp and versatile. By 1964, the United States and the Greater German Reich are caught in a Cold War and an arms race to develop more sophisticated nuclear weapons and space technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_(novel)

im confused as to why the US would not respond with an atom bomb attack on the heart of germany?

i dont think the US would just "roll over and take it," especially if our most important city was attacked, the center of our financial district...remember september 11th?

we were far ahead of the germans in developing this weapon and by extension COULD have had the hydrogen bomb even quicker as well (since efforts tend to get re-doubled in this situation)...

where does he address the lack of german manpower...? i see an insurgency from western europe to the edge of the former SU

does make for an interesting read though, and it would mean i would probably not have to try to learn german in the near future :)

[little icebear]

Fatherland is a novell. Fiction, you know. ;)

[DID]

If the Germans won WW2 there would be a serious shortage of Jews.
Oh and Jipseys, Homeo******s, Slavs and etc etc.

this so unrelevant mr X

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

Fatherland is a novell. Fiction, you know. ;)

its not an historical account??? dammit! all of this learning about german culture, all for nothing!!!

yeah i know, but its always better when they address some of the more obvious and popular avenues other than...they dropped a bomb, you tucked your tail between your legs and ran home!

[little icebear]

Well, in "Fatherland" the German Nuclear Programm is obviously further developed than the American one... and IIRC ze Germans did not take out NY but rather went for a warning shot. It´s been a while since I read it though.

Either way - you can´t retaliate if you don´t have the power to do so.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

this so unrelevant mr X

i thought it a bit odd as well including the "Jip"sey part, i guess it was a joke...?

*Gypsy or Roma

im not a fan of wholesale slaughter of people's based upon ethnicity/religion and don't like the jokes, but last time i got mad about this i was sent away by the MP.net higher-ups for re-education training to learn not to get angry in the forums...a quick lobotomy at the secret MP.net base in the far reaches of the arctic fixed me right up!

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

Well, in "Fatherland" the German Nuclear Programm is obviously further developed than the American one... and IIRC ze Germans did not take out NY but rather went for a warning shot. It´s been a while since I read it though.

Either way - you can´t retaliate if you don´t have the power to do so.

damn those crafty germans! ::takes hammer to all siemens and bosch belongings::

[DID]

i thought it a bit odd as well including the "Jip"sey part, i guess it was a joke...?

*Gypsy or Roma

im not a fan of wholesale slaughter of people's based upon ethnicity/religion and don't like the jokes, but last time i got mad about this i was sent away by the MP.net higher-ups for re-education training to learn not to get angry in the forums...a quick lobotomy at the secret MP.net base in the far reaches of the arctic fixed me right up!

maybe a joke but I think the matter is not really funny, especially for the victims.

[angelilith]

What do you think ? who could have prevented that apart the allies themselves ? the German army ? givme a break: it's not that it was about to collapse, it had already started to collapse.


http://www.chtimiste.com/batailles1418/1918aisne.htm

Let me translate the part in bold for you:

Withdrawing over Aisne in front of Gouraud, Von Einem annouce again "a great victory and a utermost important "strategic" success" (LOL), but nobody buy it anymore. Everywhere the units numbers are terribly reduced; the regiments of the 8th German division are only
Skeletons; the 408th have a total of 400 men; the 238th, 200 ; the 254th, 240.
Let alone the number of dead and wounded, witch seem considerable, the army lost more than 300000 prisonners and one third or its artillery. Almost 300 bataillons have to be dissolved, and the 1920 class, the all on the front, isn't enough to fill the holes. The line of fire is only fueled by too old reservists or too young conscriprts.

Hello I am french and I don't speak english very well but I live in Champagne and I can help you if you wan't for your search on "villages" like juniville because with my father we do searchs on it, we do the collection of old postcards and every historic things.
In exchange if someone could help me because I search an american document on witches of juniville, it was do by an american studen and I don't succeed to find him.
Thank you. I hope read you very soon...
Angelilith