Say, who thinks the germans could have won the war if they had not invaded russia, and kept its best troops on the western front? I for one think they would have put up a much better fight, its seasoned troops were in russia, something like 60 percent of its forces were fighting in russia. the other 30 training troops defending the french coast etc. So still, they put up a very good fight still, with only 30 percent of forces! So who says they couldn't have even invaded north america with the help of the japanese and taken it over? The USA was too weak at the beginning of the war. It was allowed to much time to build its forces up. What do you guys think, invasion? or beaten back the same way?

I rather think about how much the allies kicked ass and not how I could be speaking german right now.

they maybe would have won normandy if they had those panzer divisions in time to defend the cost

and come to think of it , i wouldn't be alive today . so i got that going for me

thx Hitler for sleeping late ! http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/biggrin.gif



[This message has been edited by Polaris (edited June 21, 2001).]

Well, invade North Africa, and take the rich oil fields of Egypt, with more than a pitifully small "sideshow" force, and they create a headache for the British. Unable to use the Suez Canal, the Commonwealth begins to crumble.

Invade Russia, without the idiotic death orders to all "sub-humans", and they get a population willing, able, and ready to fight for Germany. Seen as liberators, millions of Russian men would have volunteered for the German army and/or Waffen SS. This, IMO, was Hitler's biggest mistake.

His actions and orders, on the Eastern Front, doomed his men to fight against partisans for the rest of the war. If he had come as a liberator (even if he'd been lying!), he could have gained millions of men to use in the Wehrmacht. These men could have been used to counterract the massive reserves that the Soviet Union had.

Or, invade Britain. This would have taken foresight, to gear up the Kriegsmarine to produce transport craft. I do not think that the Kriegsmarine needed to match the Royal Navy ship for ship. With Germany's surface fleet, U-Boats, and Luftwaffe' bombers dedicated to subduing the Royal Navy, the Luftwaffe's fighters could have fought off the RAF. I am sure that Germany would have suffered very high losses, but so would Britain.

With the Royal Navy and RAF tied up, landing craft could have begun the invasion of southern England. A surprise landing could have been done on northern England, by way of Norway. Two landing areas, would have put a strain on Germany, but I think it could have been accomplished. Again, heavy losses, but I think in the end, with the state of Britain at the time, they could have won.

A win in the east, means Germany can annhilate any Allied landing in Western Europe. A win in the west, means Germany can dedicate even more divisions to invade Russia (however I think they would still have to come as "freinds" to the common people, so as to reduce partisan activities, and increase voluntary manpower).

IMO, of course.

------------------
34. SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Landstorm Nederland

"Meine Ehre heißt Treue"

It goes both ways my friends. What about if the allies navy would have hit there mark on the beaches of Normandy? They overshot the beaches by I dont know how far! But yes, Hitler made SEVERAL mistakes with his strategy on the war. His army would have been more successful in Normandy if his punk ass would have woken up and given orders and approved of axis movements. And yes, I do agree that the nazis really screwed up by trying to fight enemies from two directions at the same time by attacking Russia.

lol, and they were afraid of waking sleeping beauty that day

it wasnt hitler that was sleeping late, i cant reember who but watch the longest day and it talks about it, but it wasnt hitler.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ludacris:
it wasnt hitler that was sleeping late, i cant reember who but watch the longest day and it talks about it, but it wasnt hitler.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hehe, I think that's the movie he is talking about, and it was Hitler though.

yeah it was Hitler. They didnt mention his name in that particular part of the movie but they continuously said the Furrer <---- once again probably horrible spelling-- and Adolf Hitler was the Furrer of Germany.

Germany could have won the war...easily. It Adolf Hitler would have let his generals do the fighting the Axis would have won the war.

When Germany invaded Russia, Hitler should have had all his Panzer division concentrated on Moscow, just like the Panzer commanders wanted. Hitler needed to crush the spirit of the Russian people, this could have easily been done with the destruction of Moscow. In fact, Hitler planned to turn the entire city of Moscow into a giant reservoir. The Russian spirit crumbles and the Germans crush any force left in the country. This could have been done easily since morale in the army was at its lowest.

Or of course Hitler could have taken key islands in the Mediterranean, such as Crete which was a critical island for British supply lines. Take that island and the Brits fall.

Or maybe Hitler could have decided not to invade Russia, although Russia was planning on invading once German was busy with counter-attacks towards the Allied forces. But maybe if Hitler had decided not to invade those Panzer division in Normandy would have crushed the allied invasion.

The battle of Dunkirk. The war had just begun and the Brits were evacuating. A personal order from Der Fuher was not to fire upon the escaping troops and civilians. But if he had fired upon the convoys he would have destroyed the British spirit to fight and the Battle of Britain could have been won.

IMO, of course!

IwoJima, the German troops are of the highest quality in the WWII-era in my opinion. They can beat anyone 1 on 1, but you simply can't sustain a war against the whole world, I don't see the Germans winning anyhow, even with the Japanese on their side.

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ragnar:
The main reason he didn’t, was the allied bombing of Germany. The intention with the bombing was to destroy the German war industry. There was a side effect of these bomb raids, and I ‘m not sure that the allied forces were aware of that before after the war.

Hitler was forced to keep a major part of his army back in Germany in order to maintain the air defense. These raids were very unpredictable, and to keep a strong defense all over Germany you need “tons” of soldiers.


Source: Albert Speer. “ A prisoners diary”.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

??The Luftwaffe maintained all air defense in Germany...the army didn't. Although very good at air defense, the Luftwaffe were not soldiers. Seeing how the Luftwaffe field divisions did on the Eastern Front, I find it hard to believe that Hitler lost, because the Luftwaffe was defending against bombing raids?

Maybe I've misunderstood, but the bombing raids didn't hold any soldiers behind the lines. Things like partisan activities ate away at Germany's manpower.

Maybe you mean the attrition on Germany's pilots? Allied bombing did nothing to stop Germany's war production. It was higher in 1944 than at any other time. However, allied bombing wore down the Luftwaffe's fighter pilots, and ate away at their strength day by day. At the beginning of D-Day, the Luftwaffe on the Western Front was non-existent.



------------------
34. SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Landstorm Nederland

"Meine Ehre heißt Treue"

Have you heard about flak?

Read the book.

Uhhh, yeah, and FLAK were manned by the Luftwaffe, not the Heer.

------------------
34. SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Landsturm Nederland

"Meine Ehre heißt Treue"

Hitler did many tactical mistakes during the WWII.
He was indecisive, and didn’t listening to his generals.

His biggest failure was when he established a second front with declaring Russia war.
The German army wasn’t prepared for the Russian winter, and the supply lines didn’t work.

However, he could have won the battles on the eastern front and possible the whole war.

The main reason he didn’t, was the allied bombing of Germany. The intention with the bombing was to destroy the German war industry. There was a side effect of these bomb raids, and I ‘m not sure that the allied forces were aware of that before after the war.

Hitler was forced to keep a major part of his army back in Germany in order to maintain the air defense. These raids were very unpredictable, and to keep a strong defense all over Germany you need “tons” of soldiers.

If Hitler had been able to use those soldiers on the eastern front, then I’m afraid the outcome of the war would have been something else.


Source: Albert Speer. “ A prisoners diary”.

The Luftwaffe had a huge "ground" army. Over two million troops served as the ground force for the Luftwaffe. A lot of those were men who manned the...FLAK guns!

can someone post a pic of a FLAK gun , i dont think i ever seen one ,

What kind...2cm, 3.7cm, or 8.8cm?

------------------
34. SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Landsturm Nederland

"Meine Ehre heißt Treue"

i cant really pick which one , lets see , how about an 8.8cm

Bah! I dun care if they could've won the war or not, I am here and speaking English and a proud American. The Longest Day showed 1/20 of Germanys mistakes in the European Thearter. War isn't about "if's" and "but's", it's about first class action! We could say if's all day but look who's sitten on top of the world right now. http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/wink.gif

We could have lost if Hitler wasn't in charge of the army. The U.S. made a LOT of mistakes..a lot..I mean a lot...but damn a lot. The biggest I thing was treating its troops like ammo. When a troop dies send one in...you just can't do that. Usually the replacments die within 48 hours. Waste of a life.

jerry we have some canadians who are just as patriotic or even more (ludacris hehe) and maybe lighten down on the american stuff, I to am one I just want to keep the peace, anyways I will take the big flak =)

What more can you do? Send in Machines to fight? I do not see any way around that option. It's war, it's very gruesome.

------------------
"Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"
- General George S. Patton, Jr (addressing to his troops before Operation Overlord, June 5, 1944)

Well, umm, if Hitler hadnt sent troops out into russia, he would probably
a) Not have so many battle-seasoned troops available to send to the west front
b) not have the great tanks he had in his panzer divisions, he would not have learned the tricks of tanks from the east front
c) Hitler was a real jumpy guy . . . he couldnt make up his mind, kept pushing back and forth . . . If he hadnt gone for russia he would have gone for Britain . . .
d) I think its safe to say that the ME262 would not have come around . . . They would have kept pushing on other planes, rather than the desperate need for "Dive-bombers" (I know, but hitler originally wanted all me-262s to be for dive-bombing)
e)Great movies like "Stalingrad" and "Enemy at the gates" would never have graced our cinemas . . . mmmmm, bad sex scenes . . .

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfshook:
Uhhh, yeah, and FLAK were manned by the Luftwaffe, not the Heer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Albert Speer referred to the book “The Army Air Forces In World War II” written by Craven and Gates. Speer claims that the writers over-estimate the effect of the allied bombing on the German war industry.

I can’t go in details here. It’s too long.

Here is a part of it.

Quote Albert Speer.
Dated 12. August 1959.

“ The real importance of the air war was that it long before the invasion (Normandy) created a second front. This front was directed against German airspace. The bomb-raids could anytime emerge over every one of the big cities, over every important industry area. The capriciousness of these attacks lead to a broad front. Every square meter of the area we controlled belonged to it. The air defense demanded thousands of flaks lined up. Storage of enormous amount of ammunition on countless places, and hundreds of thousands of alerted soldiers – as most of the time were inactive with their guns.

As far as I know nobody have realized that this was the most serious loss on the German side. The losses during the retreat from Russia or the capitulation at Stalingrad were nothing compares to this. The almost 20 000 flaks which were still within Germany, would almost have doubled the panzer forces at the Eastern Front; Because they almost were of no use at home, they created just a reassuring firework for the people in the cities which were under attack. The speed of the 8,8-cm flak-grenade was so low when they reached the heights those bombers were flying at, that we couldn’t aim accurate.”


That was the voice of Albert Speer.
I have translated this text word by word as far as I could, but the grammar in Norwegian and English language is quite different so I had to turn a few sentences.

It’s a second hand source, and just a part of a text.
Bear in mind that this text has been translated from German to Norwegian and after that translated by me from Norwegian to English.

However I think that this source is reliable.
To me his point of view is very interesting, and it makes sense.
We should consider this information when we make up our minds about the WWII together with all the other WWII stuff of course.

Without a two front war the result could have been different, but it could also been the same. Who knows? “ I can no more say.”

In the end. Sometimes historians use the word “ soldiers” as a general description on every fighting man involved or available. They won’t always mess with details if they can get to the point without.