12
   

If Hitler had been smart, would Germany have won?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 08:31 am
There is the problem, though, of Hess suddenly taking off in a small plane, alone, and landing in Scotland. I suspect that the entire idea was his brain-child, and that it had been vetoed, leading him to act on his own recognizance. As you point out, it could still be embarrassing to that German family in Windsor Palace, so i doubt that you or i will live to see the truth revealed.
0 Replies
 
BlackWatch
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 03:19 pm
Balance of Power [minus] Power = Nothing to Balance
THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE
England could not win the war - they could only hope to hang on until the Russians and Yanks showed up.

If the Russians and Yanks do not show up, then the English sit on their island. The Krauts never had plans to invade England (it was a bluff). England can not change anything on their own (they are historically the Balance of Power but with their forces destroyed at Dunkirk - there is nothing for them to do.)

NO REDS
If Hitler lets the partition of Poland stand (and forgoes the Ukranian adventure), then Russia has no reason to attack Germany. If the Reds decide to attack, then good luck to them. Assuming Hitler forgoes the invasion of Russia, then the Russians get to tangle with a totally different German army. The Reds against a Static, depleted and worn-out German army is one thing. The Reds against a highly mobile, fresh and mechanized German army is another thing. A contemporary anecdote is the Winter War.

NO YANKS
The Germans never intended to cross the channel - so Hitler chooses never to engage in the "Battle" of Britain. Hitler does not declare war on the U.S.A Hitler sends out the "can't we all just get along" message to the world and offers peace to the Brits. The Yanks have no motivation to go to war and don't.

NO DICE
Hitler keeps half of Poland, half of France and the rest of the H.R.E.

//BW

Unrelated Footnote: As for Fritz, he was the modern father of local superiority. The western world had basically forgotten to use it for about 2,000 years.
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 08:35 am
Alright i am a new member here so this is a reply to all the hitler stuff. First what hitler should of done was finish off the western allies (ie. britain and resistances) Then after he had a proper puppet government in britain as he did in france, he should have tighted his grip on his allies (Finnland, Hungary, Rumania and all others he had) then by this time i believe that spain would have seen the weakness of the allied armies and therefore allie franco would have allied with germany.

Oh and by the way in the time while this is all happeneing hitler is conducting a massive breeding program of the german race which will be the occupiers of hitlers new european territories.

Also on another note i agree his declaration of war on the U.S. was stupid but it was only pe-mature. he should have waited t'ill they were deep in japaneese territory to declare war.

Anyway hitler now attackes the U.S.S.R. with his axis and allies which would literally rip apart russia and would surrender very soon after. Also I would have italy and spain occupy the russians more eastern terrirory.

Now at this time he would have swept into africa talken it and the arabian states and then probably even china (Japan would have left to fight the americans)

Then at this time the americans would have discovered the nuke along with the Nazi's and we would have still gone into a cold war.

Inconclusion the nazi's by the 1955 could have had all of europe africa and lots of asia and with engough forces to take out the states (probaby end up in nuklear holocaust killing everyone though)
Hitler would have illegalized marrage between none nordic people and boosted his own efforts of making the master race.
But in the end the US would have givin because they would have been in a very lage sieg. with the germans having superrior resourses he would have raped the U.S.

Oh one last thing a Naz would have been the first man on the moon (since the americans stole all the nazi rocket scientists who got them up there in the first place!

thank you all fro allowing me to get that all out.
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 08:54 am
I just wanted to say sorry about my first post it has tons of...............grammatical errors, so....sorry to all readers.

Also i would like to add that it was only a shortened version of what i think Hitler should have done and i didn't write an entire book on it like this sentana does each post......Christ!!!




Also i would very much appreciate feedback on my post thanks.


-Hans
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 09:24 am
Hans
I get the distinct impression that you are sorry Germany lost the war. Am I mistaken? I hope so.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 09:30 am
Since you object to my "books," here's a flyer . . . all of these "gee, those cool Nazis could have won" scenarios which get advanced ignore the simple reality that Hitler was militarily stupid, and that all of Germany, military and civilian, were fully in the grip of the NSDAP apparatus, making the probability of the "intelligent strategies" advanced nil. It didn't happen because the very nature of Adolf and the NSDAP mitigated against an intelligent approach.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 10:24 am
You asked for feedback, so here you go:

Hans_Goring wrote:
Alright i am a new member here so this is a reply to all the hitler stuff. First what hitler should of done was finish off the western allies (ie. britain and resistances) Then after he had a proper puppet government in britain as he did in france, he should have tighted his grip on his allies (Finnland, Hungary, Rumania and all others he had) then by this time i believe that spain would have seen the weakness of the allied armies and therefore allie franco would have allied with germany.


"Finishing off" the western allies is not a thesis ammenable to be tossed out and moving on. In any scenario in which Hitler's forces do not leave continental Europe (i.e., supporting the Italians in North Africa), Britain has at its disposal six brigades from Australia, a New Zealand "super division" (it was a mechanized division nearly twice the size of a standard British infantry division of the day), a South African armored division, at least three Canadian divisions, and six to eight Indian infantry divisions as well as several mechanized and armored regiments--all of which forces existed before the war, completely equipped. A scenario of "finishing off" the western allies must necessarily ignore the resolve of Churchill in particular, and the English people in general. It ignores the huge resources available to England, while Germany was slowly starving for resources, petroleum in particular. It ignores that the conquered nations provided more than just local "insurgencies." Polish troops eventually numbered three infantry divisions and an armored brigade; Polish pilots made up 40% of the flyers in the Battle of Britain, and Americans, Canadians, Belgians, French, Norwegians and Danes all flew for the RAF; the Belgians provided an infantry brigade; despite bad relations, the French eventually provided more troops in the west, many from the African colonies, than any ally other than Britain and the United States. Tossing off the phrase "finishing off the western allies" demonstrates a lack of perspective on what would have been involved in such an effort.

Finland was an ally on in so far as they wanted help to throw the Soviets out of their country. Having reached their 1938 borders, they refused to advance any further, and nothing the Germans could do would alter that. They'd have made a pact with Satan himself to get the Soviets out, but they were dedicated to their own sense of justice in the matter, and invasion of the Soviet Union was simply not on the table. Hungary and Rumania were allies largely by coercision. Admiral Hrothy refused to deport Hungarian Jews to Germany, and neither of these nations made substantial contributions to the invasion of Russia. Mere numbers mean nothing--when the river froze over at Stalingrad after November 14, 1942, the Soviet Guards divisions poured across, and shattered a Roumanian army in a matter of hours, surrounding and cutting off the German 6th Army in Stalingrad in a matter of days. The Hungarian, Roumanian and Italian troops in Russia were never reliable front-line troops, and their only useful contribution was to occupy portions of the line in what were considered "quiet" sectors. In particular, the Germans coerced Roumania because of their petroleum resources. The Wehrmacht depended heavily upon horses, and throughout the war, the Germans were operating from hand to mouth in the matter of petroleum.

Franco headed the Falange. Although it is always, and not unfairly, identified as facist, there was no natural affinity between the Spanish and the Germans. In fact, a Falange volunteer division did serve in the Soviet Union with the Germans. The notion that Franco would have thrown significant military force onto the German side, especially after the devastating civil war of the late 1930's, is unrealistic.

Quote:
Oh and by the way in the time while this is all happeneing hitler is conducting a massive breeding program of the german race which will be the occupiers of hitlers new european territories.


You really do like that old boy Hitler, don't ya. The "massive breeding" program to which you refer, even if more than a pipe-dream of racist Germans, would have done little good in that contemporary situation. Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. Children born then and thereafter would not reach adulthood until 1951 or later--fully a decade after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. This is such nonsense, i hardly know if it is to be taken seriously.

Quote:
Also on another note i agree his declaration of war on the U.S. was stupid but it was only pe-mature. he should have waited t'ill they were deep in japaneese territory to declare war.


Japan did nothing to aid German in that war. In fact, they concluded an armistice with the Soviet Union which freed a significantly substantial number of troops to be shipped to the west. There was absolutely no value for Germany in a declaration of war against the United States, neither in 1941 or later. Such a declaration was stupid, in 1941, and at any time thereafter. I can't imagin what you mean by "deep in japanese territory," but in fact, the United States did not at any time occupy Japanese territory until the Japanese had capitulated, unless one counts the mandates--and a flimsier basis for considering this "deep in japanese territory" i could not imagine. American resources deployed to the Pacific were primarily naval and air power resources; in Europe, the necessary resources were land forces and air forces. As far as air forces go, we demonstrated that we had sufficient means for both theaters. As far as land forces go, air superiority allowed Eisenhower to operate for long periods of time with fewer troops on the ground than the Germans disposed of. A German declaration of war on the United States was stupid at any time, for any reason.


Anyway hitler now attackes the U.S.S.R. with his axis and allies which would literally rip apart russia and would surrender very soon after. Also I would have italy and spain occupy the russians more eastern terrirory.

Now at this time he would have swept into africa talken it and the arabian states and then probably even china (Japan would have left to fight the americans)

Quote:
Then at this time the americans would have discovered the nuke along with the Nazi's and we would have still gone into a cold war.


The Allies were worried that the Germans would have developed a nuke, but that program wasn't even close. Your Nazi-Allies cold war suggestion is a chimera.

Quote:
Inconclusion the nazi's by the 1955 could have had all of europe africa and lots of asia and with engough forces to take out the states (probaby end up in nuklear holocaust killing everyone though)
Hitler would have illegalized marrage between none nordic people and boosted his own efforts of making the master race.
But in the end the US would have givin because they would have been in a very lage sieg. with the germans having superrior resourses he would have raped the U.S.


You are in such a grip of Nazi fantasy as to have made most of this incoherent. Germany's problem throughout the war was a lack of resources. The scenario you paint could only have occured if the Soviet Union were successfully invaded and defeated, and that simply was not going to happen. Germany never controlled very much of Africa, and Asia not at all. You let your imagination run away with you, and apparently because you think a Nazi victory would have been a glorious thing.

Quote:
Oh one last thing a Naz would have been the first man on the moon (since the americans stole all the nazi rocket scientists who got them up there in the first place!

thank you all fro allowing me to get that all out.


I go along with Au here, it seems you idolize the Nazis--you certainly demonstate a complete lack of historical perspective, and little depth of knowledge of even the general history of the period.
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 10:55 am
This is mainly for setana (or for you excited viewers at home)


First i would like to reply to you to au1929 i am not sorry they lost i am not some half-wit red neck hick who lives in western U.S. i just like to say what i would do in different people's shoes. Also to point out idiotic mistakes.

Second i would like to thank setana for your critique of my (theory) but you didn't have to go out of your way to call me a nazi, although it may sound like it in which i wrote, i can say that you have never been farther from the truth! I am a proud citizen of Canada, which on top of that, i am a very liberal person and actually just voted for paul Martin in the recent federal elections.

Although much of what you did say in your "little" critique, do not delude yourself the nazi's more than had the capabilities to conquer most the world. Also in fact i recently watched a program on History television called "Hitlers' Briton" in which i got some facts to support my theory.

On a more personal note setana you should really tone it down a bit i was joking when i said each of your posts were like "Books" it was i joke, i was actually impressed with your knowledge of our history. i will make another post soon with a more detailed explanation of my statements, my last one was really rushed

But just to clarify.....I AM CANADIAN (Liberal) NOT A NAZI!!!

But again thanks for your very in depth critique, i hope to have more debates with you in the future




-Hans
0 Replies
 
BlackWatch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 10:56 am
Robert E. Heinlen
Nazis on the Moon sounds like the plot of one of Robert E. Heinlen's books.

However, failure to eliminate the Nazis from central Europe was a distinct possibility and would have been a victory for Hitler.


//BW
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 11:08 am
It never happened it was just a theory of what could have happened like i can say all of north america could have been french had france put more effort into keeping it fro the british, don't take anything i say serious
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 11:11 am
oh and by the way is that the author of the book space cadet....i read that back when i was 12


-Hans
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 11:35 am
Actually speaking of political and military follies lets have a discussion of the good ole' US of A. Is the bush government a modern Nazi regime.......na there just thick in the head lol yep that george bush is a real good laugh sometimes.......his speech has changed from "We have gone into Iraq do disarm Saddam of his" (No here is a phrase none of us will forget along with wardrobe malfunction) "weapons of mass destruction"(or distraction hehe) to "Although we find no WOMD the invasion of Iraq was for the good of mankind" then he adds because Iraq has the capability to cause harm....well duh Bush even good ole' luxemburg can cause harm.......anyway its all clear why he went in and sacrificed 1000 of his own men.....OIL of corse!! So to all you Americans please for the good of mankind don't vote that idiot back into power!!. On a side note did you know that anyone convicted of a felony in florida was restricted from voting mouths weeks before the elections.......hmmm i smell a rat......George up to his old tricks again.


Vote for democrats please before he gets the idea that canada has weapons of mass destruction lol.(he wants our softwood timber)


-Hans
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 12:10 pm
Just a little detail:
Hans_Goring wrote:
...then by this time I believe that Spain would have seen the weakness of the allied armies and therefore allie Franco would have allied with Germany.

1) Spain has never been an ally of the US, the UK, Canada etc. 2) Franco wanted to become an ally of Hitler and fight with him; it was Hitler who refused this, because he believed Spains army was too weak. It is also believed Hitler didn't like Franco on a personal level.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 01:45 pm
H Goering wrote

Quote:
I AM CANADIAN (Liberal) NOT A NAZI!!!


Glad you cleared that up H. Goering. Its not easy to tell the difference sometimes. Especially at this time of year when all those toothy-grin maple leaf toting Canadian back packers invade London. They can so easily be mistaken for waffen ss (Canadian Liberal branch) Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 01:55 pm
Generally, the home-grown variety of your nasty stereotype is that the half-wit redneck hick lives in the southern United States--although i'm sure that the members here who inhabit the western states will be charmed by your assumption. It's nonsense, of course, whether one imagines such hicks in the south or the west--hicks are to be found everywhere, including Canada.

Liberal? What the hell is that supposed to mean? I've rarely seen a more plutocratic parliamentary government than has been expressed by the alternation of Tory and Liberal in Canada. Had you said you were a New Democrat, i might have believed you to have a valid distinction between your politics and the smoke and mirrors of American politics. But any Canadian liberal or "Progressive Conservative" can make little distinction, to my mind, between themselves and the two main parties in this country.

Finally, my apologies for having assumed that you were one of the many starry-eyed, "Gee, those Nazis were so cool, they coulda won" crowd that we get here--but your thesis was so facile, and seems so ill-informed, that it appeared to me no other than a fond daydream.
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 03:05 pm
Thanks for the info Rick i always thought Hitler was desperate for help and would have taken anyone for help, but i guess i was wrong, but hey you learn something new every day.


Steve your a funny guy, how's the weather up in jolly good ole' London??

Ahh Setanta always good to hear from my most lovable critic...Ya sorry about the western US zing it just kind rolled out and you are right our hicks are prodomanitly in alberta and british columbia.

As for the differences in between our parties, i am sorry to say you are wrong. First of all we have more "variety" we have the (New Conservative party), (The Liberal Party), (the New democratic Party), (le Bloc Quebecois) en Quebec, and the Green party. I know you have more than 2 options to but each of our parties have almost equal chances of winning either a minority or majority except maybe the Green party. Second even our most conservative party aka the New Concervative party is very much more left wing then your democratic party.




-Hans
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 03:23 pm
I have been looking at previous posts and i have a very interesting question. My question is if Rudolph Hess was in prision from the 10th of may 1941 until the war ended in 45 why did he go to jail when not a whole lot of fighting had been done and the jews hadn't been exterminated in full force therefore leaving him with very few atrocities against him?? I suspect setanta will answer this question.



-Hans
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 03:48 pm
You suspect wrong. You also either didn't get the implication of my statement, or you willfully ignored it. I am conversant with the history of the New Democratic party, originating from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation amalgamated with the Labour Congress. I am also well aware that the Tories, despite calling themselves "Progressive Conservatives," are just as right-wing as the Republican party in the U.S. I am further not so naive as not to see that the Liberals are no more left-wing than the Democrats in the U.S.--which is to say, not at all.

As i mentioned previously, Canada's parliamentary history since 1867 is one of a government far more influenced by plutocratic policies than was ever the case in the United States before the election of Ronald Reagan. I am never impressed with arguments advanced by Canadians about the "liberality" of their governments, and find it hilarious when Americans call it a socialist state. Canadian parliaments have rushed to kiss corporate ass faster than a puck in a slap shot . . . please spare me the high tone about Canajun politics . . .
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 03:57 pm
Alright then i guess i don't know facts about my own country and just 3 weeks ago voted without knowing a damn thing. pure ingnorance on my part.....




-Hans
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 04:14 pm
alright were not talkin about canada of america here so lets get back on topic, i'm sorry i was wrong about all i said.


-Hans
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/10/2022 at 06:33:52