Good reminder Le- you continue to impress me with your responses.
MONTYB. - When you put it that way, young fella', I can live with that.
Turning point of WW2
Good reminder Le- you continue to impress me with your responses.
MONTYB. - When you put it that way, young fella', I can live with that.
lolwhassup
Active member
Had Hitler beaten Britain AND the Soviet Union would he then help Japan. Hitler might have been a fool, but he still had enough brains to put priority on the Soviet Union. (At least until he launched Wacht Am Rhein in late '44) The jet engine in point you bring is completely irrelevant seeing as jet fighter came in too late on both sides to even make the smallest impact on the war.
Last edited:
You and I know that but, Hitler did not. If Hitler had stuck to his promise he made to Adm. Doenitz to not start the war until he had delivered three subs to Doenitz maybe things would be different? Hitler could not follow a straight line and, him being so erratic caused him to screw up everything. Had he led the USA, he would have found a way to screw up and lose the war!
Whereas both Germany and Japan were such extreme racist, I don't see them being happy with the two of them ruling the world, not for long. One of the two would have gotten greedy and sought to control/rule the world all by one country's efforts.
Doesn't it sound ridiculous, two countries with about eighty million people each wanting to conquer the world, against countries with hundreds of million people each? It does to me.
Oh yes, shortly after the start of the war, 'London'... and Washington agreed to put the major efforts in defeating Germany first. The great expanse of the Pacific Ocean meant the Japanese could control very large areas of the ocean and still not physically put a foot on terra firma of Austalia, New Zealand or, the USA.
America defeated Japan with only twenty percent of its military material production!! Remember by early 1944, the US shipyards had replaced all of the cargo ships and oilers sunk by German forces!
84RFK
Active member
As the jet powered German planes indeed came into service far to late to make any difference, you have a valid point, but...
In the first years of the war the German Blitzkrieg tactic worked well, and there was no desire to spend any money on jet-powered toys as the Germans were pretty confident that they would have won the war before the jetplanes became operational.
That stance hampered the project that turned out the ME-262 even after the plane flew under jet power for the first time, and proved sucsessfull.
And when the Germans realized how the war turned on them, they became desperate and pushed the plane into service, but still with lacking funds for developement, and with technique suffering from the general lack of resources that became a trademark for late-war Germany.
Thanks to Hitler's incompetence I'm able to type this in English. :cheers:
Hitler's incompetence has nothing do to with this ,unless you are thinking
a)that without Hitler,Germany would win the war
b)that Hitler was the cause of Germany's defeat
and,sorry,but these 2 assumptions are totally wrong .
84RFK
Active member
I must aggree on point a) Without Hitler, Germany wouldn't have started a war.
But Hitler did interfere with too many things that was vital to the German war effort, or he made the influence on others to make decissions that hampered the war effort.
They were confident that they would win in the old-fashioned way, and thus there was no need to spend much resources on new technology.
There was a whole lot of projects nearly full developed that could have given Nazi-Germany an upper hand in many ways.
But as he (Hitler again) decided to declare war on the USA those new developments was to no use.
They tried to fight the US industry once before, and didn't learn then.
papasha408
Active member
Hitler's constant interference in military planning was most certainly one of the large reasons for Germany's defeat. When he stopped the panzers from rolling over the BEF at Dunkirk he saved Britain to fight another day.
His fixation on the destruction of the USSR made him reckless. He was a totally irrational man who was incapable of pursuing any alternative ways or means of achieving his goals. The USSR had no desire to butt heads with Germany in 1941 or 1942 or 43 for that matter. Stalin didn't trust Hitler but he needed time to develope an officer corps and to build a better air-force. At the time the Russians had the best tank in the world in the T34. The problem was they did not have very many of them.
Hitler as Rommel said lived in a cloud-coo-coo land.
His declaration of war against the USA after pearl harbour may very well have been his defining moment as a reckless, interferring twit.
I believe the 1st turning point was his decision the save the British army at Dunkirk. His second was attacking the USSR when he did. His third was declaring war on the USA.
Last edited:
Seehund
Banned
The major reason Hitler was never close to making your grandparents goose step through Time Square: The Soviet Union.
Yes, Hitler plowed through Europe and had the UK on the ropes, and could have done more. It didn't matter. Stalin was waiting on the other side, and Hitler was never going to win that war. It was just a matter of how much of Europe he would control at the moment Stalin eventually crushed him.
Hitler saving The British Army at Dunkirk has been proved to be a myth.
Btw:there were no turning points in WWII .
papasha408
Active member
Hitler may not have knowingly saved the British army at Dunkirk, but stopping his panzers and most of his troops from rolling over the beaches shows his tactics were questionable to say the least.
Anyone in his right mind must have realized the BEF could not be destroyed by the luftwaffe alone. Except Goering that is.
papasha408
Active member
The Soviet Union was in no position to attack Germany until at least 1944. I have a sneaking premonition Stalin wouldn't have attacked then either, if Hitler remained quasi-true to the so called friendship. The Soviets had much to work out before going to war. A non-existant officer corps. An archaic airforce, and no real professional army.
True, the Soviets reacted with great courage and managed to hold until general winter hit in 1941. But except for the T 34, KV 1, and 2 and more automatic weapons than any other nation, the Soviets were not prepared for war. And everything points to Stalin not wanting a war with Germany. At least not for the forseeable future.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
The question is whether he had the option to keep them going or not, in my opinion the panzers were at the limit of their operational capability and needed to stop to await supplies, fuel and infantry support.
Last edited:
LeEnfield
Active member
Th Battle Of Britain....Should be considered up there with the all the rest that are being talked about. Had Britian fallen then I don't think that the war in North Africa would have taken place. Spain would have joined Germany to claim back Gibraltar, Malta would have also fallen. and the Med would have become controlled by Italy. Germany would have then had a lot more resources to attack Russia with and they would not needed a million people to man the Air Defences in Germany, with all this extra German man power the in Russia would have taken a different turn
samneanderthal
Active member
Hitler lost the war by wasting away 2,000 planes during the BoB
When France capitulated Germany had a formidable airforce. However, Britain had the best fighter, the Spitfire and German planes had a limited range, so they could spend much less time fighting over Britain than the British fighters. Any British pilots shot down over Britain and bailing out could soon return to the fight, while German pilots would be captured.
Moreover, given the strength of the royal navy, Germany would experience unacceptable losses invading Britain in order to gain very little territory.
For lack of German planes and tanks in the Mediterranean 130,000 Italians were captured in Libya and Mussolini decided to invade Greece, forgetting temporarely about invading Egypt.
In contrast, in July 1940 Malta and Egypt were very poorly defended (mostly biplanes and few troops) and Malta is only 93 km from Sicily. Italy had a very powerful army and navy but few modern fighters and dive bombers. Persia had one of the largest refineries in the world in Abadan, which produced 8 million tons of fuel in 1940 and the British had very weak forces in Iraq and Persia, which were pro German.
Had Hitler forgotten about invading Britain and sent to the Mediterranean most of the 2,000 planes that he wasted in the BoB. The combination of the 19 Italian Cruisers, 58 destroyers and the German planes would have allowed prompt capture of Malta, which had mostly Gladiator biplanes and very few Hurricanes. Malta lies over 1,500 km both from Gibraltar and Alexandria, so that capturing Malta more than doubled the distance between British bases in the Mediterranean, effectively excluding the RN from most of the Mediterranean and ensuring safe passage to all the supplies from Italy to Libya.
As soon as Malta is captured, Rommel is sent with hundreds of German planes and tanks and the powerful Italian army (which the British defeated capturing 130,000 men for lack of planes and leadership, another huge waste that is prevented with this plan). Because Britain cannot send reinforcements to Egypt through the Mediterranean without Malta and with so many German planes in the area, supplies have to travel around Africa, so that Rommel can rapidly capture weak Alexandria, from where it is supplied for the invasion of Suez, cairo, etc,
Guderian arrives in Alexandria and advances toward Palestine, Iraq and Persia. Simultaneously, Italian troops (with support from Ju-88 and Bf-110 that flly from Egypt to Ethiopia) capture Sudan, Somalia, Aden.
Having lost access to the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Persian oil, Britain has to sue for Peace.
With the Germans in Iraq and Persia, Turkey joins the axis, allowing access to the Black Sea to the axis. On may 15, 1941 Guderian and Rommel invade the USSR advancing toward Baku (the Soviet oilfields), while the Italian navy and German planes dominate the Black sea, allowing supplies to the axis troops.
Once Baku is captured, the Soviets are deprived of oil.
The Axis does not advance on a 3,000 km wide front in the USSR, but reinforces the Romanian, Slovakian and Polish borders with the USSR and advances only along the Baltic coast and from Finland toward Leningrad and Murmansk. The defensive line uses horses and trains for supplies and mobility and the offensive uses all the trucks available. So that Leningrad and Murmansk fall within a month. From Leningrad the Germans advance toward Moscow, which is vital to capture in order to satisty Japan´s condition to enter the war against the USSR. In the meantime Stalin orders an offensive into axis territory, but since the Soviets have poor logistics and the Germans have strong defenses and millions of mines, Soviet losses are unacceptable. After Moscow falls, Japan enters the war and captures Vladivostok, etc,
Without the oil from Baku and foreign aid (the year-round ports have fallen to the axis) and facing Romania, Finland, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Japan, Turkey, etc, The Soviet situation is hopeless. While the axis has the oil from Persia and Baku.
When France capitulated Germany had a formidable airforce. However, Britain had the best fighter, the Spitfire and German planes had a limited range, so they could spend much less time fighting over Britain than the British fighters. Any British pilots shot down over Britain and bailing out could soon return to the fight, while German pilots would be captured.
Moreover, given the strength of the royal navy, Germany would experience unacceptable losses invading Britain in order to gain very little territory.
For lack of German planes and tanks in the Mediterranean 130,000 Italians were captured in Libya and Mussolini decided to invade Greece, forgetting temporarely about invading Egypt.
In contrast, in July 1940 Malta and Egypt were very poorly defended (mostly biplanes and few troops) and Malta is only 93 km from Sicily. Italy had a very powerful army and navy but few modern fighters and dive bombers. Persia had one of the largest refineries in the world in Abadan, which produced 8 million tons of fuel in 1940 and the British had very weak forces in Iraq and Persia, which were pro German.
Had Hitler forgotten about invading Britain and sent to the Mediterranean most of the 2,000 planes that he wasted in the BoB. The combination of the 19 Italian Cruisers, 58 destroyers and the German planes would have allowed prompt capture of Malta, which had mostly Gladiator biplanes and very few Hurricanes. Malta lies over 1,500 km both from Gibraltar and Alexandria, so that capturing Malta more than doubled the distance between British bases in the Mediterranean, effectively excluding the RN from most of the Mediterranean and ensuring safe passage to all the supplies from Italy to Libya.
As soon as Malta is captured, Rommel is sent with hundreds of German planes and tanks and the powerful Italian army (which the British defeated capturing 130,000 men for lack of planes and leadership, another huge waste that is prevented with this plan). Because Britain cannot send reinforcements to Egypt through the Mediterranean without Malta and with so many German planes in the area, supplies have to travel around Africa, so that Rommel can rapidly capture weak Alexandria, from where it is supplied for the invasion of Suez, cairo, etc,
Guderian arrives in Alexandria and advances toward Palestine, Iraq and Persia. Simultaneously, Italian troops (with support from Ju-88 and Bf-110 that flly from Egypt to Ethiopia) capture Sudan, Somalia, Aden.
Having lost access to the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Persian oil, Britain has to sue for Peace.
With the Germans in Iraq and Persia, Turkey joins the axis, allowing access to the Black Sea to the axis. On may 15, 1941 Guderian and Rommel invade the USSR advancing toward Baku (the Soviet oilfields), while the Italian navy and German planes dominate the Black sea, allowing supplies to the axis troops.
Once Baku is captured, the Soviets are deprived of oil.
The Axis does not advance on a 3,000 km wide front in the USSR, but reinforces the Romanian, Slovakian and Polish borders with the USSR and advances only along the Baltic coast and from Finland toward Leningrad and Murmansk. The defensive line uses horses and trains for supplies and mobility and the offensive uses all the trucks available. So that Leningrad and Murmansk fall within a month. From Leningrad the Germans advance toward Moscow, which is vital to capture in order to satisty Japan´s condition to enter the war against the USSR. In the meantime Stalin orders an offensive into axis territory, but since the Soviets have poor logistics and the Germans have strong defenses and millions of mines, Soviet losses are unacceptable. After Moscow falls, Japan enters the war and captures Vladivostok, etc,
Without the oil from Baku and foreign aid (the year-round ports have fallen to the axis) and facing Romania, Finland, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Japan, Turkey, etc, The Soviet situation is hopeless. While the axis has the oil from Persia and Baku.
Last edited:
The whole thing is very improbable:
1) 15 may was impossible for Barbarossa:the weather ,you know
2) Britain did not need the Persian oil :it got all the oil it needed ,from the US
3)A big German commitment in the ME would make Barbarossa impossible:all these planes and tanks could not be on 2 different theaters of operation
4)As the distance between Tripoli and the oil fields of Iral was 4000 km,the possibility for the Germans to advance to these oil fields,was inexistent :where would they get te oil to advance 4000 km? Such an advance (if possible),would demand at least 6 months ,and ,meanwhile,the British would destroy the oil fields .There is also the "little" problem that NO tank could advance 4000 km :wear and tear:the tracks and motors would be finished after 1000 km advancing in the desert.
5) The chances for the Italians to capture Malta are,IMHO,inexistant .A German commitment in the Mediterranean would imply no Battle of Britain,thus RAF reinforcements to Malta .
1) 15 may was impossible for Barbarossa:the weather ,you know
2) Britain did not need the Persian oil :it got all the oil it needed ,from the US
3)A big German commitment in the ME would make Barbarossa impossible:all these planes and tanks could not be on 2 different theaters of operation
4)As the distance between Tripoli and the oil fields of Iral was 4000 km,the possibility for the Germans to advance to these oil fields,was inexistent :where would they get te oil to advance 4000 km? Such an advance (if possible),would demand at least 6 months ,and ,meanwhile,the British would destroy the oil fields .There is also the "little" problem that NO tank could advance 4000 km :wear and tear:the tracks and motors would be finished after 1000 km advancing in the desert.
5) The chances for the Italians to capture Malta are,IMHO,inexistant .A German commitment in the Mediterranean would imply no Battle of Britain,thus RAF reinforcements to Malta .
samneanderthal
Active member
Hi lljadw,
1) The weather on May 15, 1941 was quite good to invade from Persia and for naval operations in the Baltic, Black and Caspian Seas and for the army to capture Lithuania, etc, The fact that advancing through the Ukraine is not very feasible works to the axis' advantage, which is defending along the Ukraine
1) In 1940 Britain was bankrupt and paying cash for the goods it bought from the US (no Lend-Lease yet) and many of these goods were lost to the submarines in the Atlantic. The refinery in Abadan, Persia was built by the British at great expense. It was the largest in the world in 1938 and like I said, it produced 8 million tons of fuel in 1940, which went to GB and its allies. Without this oil, Britain could not fight. Moreover, if Britain loses Malta, Egypt, etc, and is not bombed by Germany, Lend-Lease would never have taken place. Britain would have lost the sympathy of the American public and America could not afford to lose access to the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.
3) I repeat, the planes in the Mediterranean are those that were lost in the BoB (which doesn´t take place), so actually there are more planes and pilots available for Barbarossa. A large part of the troops used to capture Egypt, Iraq and Persia are the Italian troops that never fell prisoner to the British, because the German planes, tanks and Rommel arrived in Libya in July, 1940. The invasion of Greece never took place and no planes are lost fighting over Malta in 1941, 42 and 43, so actually, there are more planes, troops and tanks for the eastern front.
4) Guderian is advancing from Alexandria to Abadan, quite a feasible distance. Most importantly, in 1940 Germany was gettig all the oil it needed on credit from Stalin.
5) The chances of the Germans and Italians capturing Malta in 1940 are two orders of magnitude greater than the odds of capturing a huge and heavily defended Crete in 1941, much closer to the British base in Alexandria, which they did capture.
It is interesting to point out that Metaxas, the Greek prime minister was strongly pro German. However, Mussolini's ill conceived and pointless invasion forced Greece to defend itself and to ally itself with GB. Had Mussolini been busy, successfully invading Egypt, etc, He wouldn't have been ridiculed by the Greeks, who almost captured Albania from Italy, depriving it of its only source of cheap oil.
Greece cost the axis a lot of resources to invade and occupy for years and produced extremely few benefits, so it was much better to keep it neutral or to force it to join the axis when the latter controlled the Mediterranean and the oil of Persia.
Regards
1) The weather on May 15, 1941 was quite good to invade from Persia and for naval operations in the Baltic, Black and Caspian Seas and for the army to capture Lithuania, etc, The fact that advancing through the Ukraine is not very feasible works to the axis' advantage, which is defending along the Ukraine
1) In 1940 Britain was bankrupt and paying cash for the goods it bought from the US (no Lend-Lease yet) and many of these goods were lost to the submarines in the Atlantic. The refinery in Abadan, Persia was built by the British at great expense. It was the largest in the world in 1938 and like I said, it produced 8 million tons of fuel in 1940, which went to GB and its allies. Without this oil, Britain could not fight. Moreover, if Britain loses Malta, Egypt, etc, and is not bombed by Germany, Lend-Lease would never have taken place. Britain would have lost the sympathy of the American public and America could not afford to lose access to the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.
3) I repeat, the planes in the Mediterranean are those that were lost in the BoB (which doesn´t take place), so actually there are more planes and pilots available for Barbarossa. A large part of the troops used to capture Egypt, Iraq and Persia are the Italian troops that never fell prisoner to the British, because the German planes, tanks and Rommel arrived in Libya in July, 1940. The invasion of Greece never took place and no planes are lost fighting over Malta in 1941, 42 and 43, so actually, there are more planes, troops and tanks for the eastern front.
4) Guderian is advancing from Alexandria to Abadan, quite a feasible distance. Most importantly, in 1940 Germany was gettig all the oil it needed on credit from Stalin.
5) The chances of the Germans and Italians capturing Malta in 1940 are two orders of magnitude greater than the odds of capturing a huge and heavily defended Crete in 1941, much closer to the British base in Alexandria, which they did capture.
It is interesting to point out that Metaxas, the Greek prime minister was strongly pro German. However, Mussolini's ill conceived and pointless invasion forced Greece to defend itself and to ally itself with GB. Had Mussolini been busy, successfully invading Egypt, etc, He wouldn't have been ridiculed by the Greeks, who almost captured Albania from Italy, depriving it of its only source of cheap oil.
Greece cost the axis a lot of resources to invade and occupy for years and produced extremely few benefits, so it was much better to keep it neutral or to force it to join the axis when the latter controlled the Mediterranean and the oil of Persia.
Regards
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
While I can agree with some points I think you have fallen into the same trap Papasha408 seems to have as well in that you are focusing on the number of troops Germany can bring to bear and overlooking its inability to supply those troops, tanks, aircraft and guns.
In my opinion the greatest failing of the Germans in WW2 was its logistical capabilities.
In my opinion the greatest failing of the Germans in WW2 was its logistical capabilities.
samneanderthal
Active member
Supplies flowing from Italy to Libya in 1940 were abundant. The Italian navy did an excellent job, which is why the British captured 130,000 prisoners and enough cannon, machine guns, ammunitions, etc, to supply Greece (ironically Greece defeated Italy with guns captured in Libya), not to mention the large number of tanks and biplanes destroyed by the British. The Italians had few planes and no artillery that could stop the British Matilda Tanks (which Rommel destroyed in Arras with the 88 mm Flak), so sending German planes, tanks and leaders to Libya changes completely the picture.
Even in 1941 the Italians did an excellent job supplying Rommel with hundreds of thousands of tons. However, the problem was that Germany was fighting in Greece first and after June 22, 1941 did not have access to Soviet oil on credit and had few guns to send to Rommel, because they were sent to the eastern front.
In the summer of 1940 with Soviet oil, an almost intact Italian navy, axis control of Malta and with Germany and Italy not fighting anywhere else, capturing poorly defended Egypt (which cannot be supplied except sailing around Africa) is a given.
By the way capturing Malta in July 1940 not only ensures safe passage for the supplies to Libya and prevents the British from supplying Egypt, it also prevents the British from sinking the Italian Battleships in Taranto much later in the year. So these ships can team up with the German planes to expel the British from the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and a good part of the Indian Ocean. Once Britain is out of the war they can sail to the Black Sea to help the invasion.
Given the series of debacles that the UK had suffered throughout the war, I venture to say that as soon as Alexandria falls to the Axis, Churchill will have to sue for peace.
Even in 1941 the Italians did an excellent job supplying Rommel with hundreds of thousands of tons. However, the problem was that Germany was fighting in Greece first and after June 22, 1941 did not have access to Soviet oil on credit and had few guns to send to Rommel, because they were sent to the eastern front.
In the summer of 1940 with Soviet oil, an almost intact Italian navy, axis control of Malta and with Germany and Italy not fighting anywhere else, capturing poorly defended Egypt (which cannot be supplied except sailing around Africa) is a given.
By the way capturing Malta in July 1940 not only ensures safe passage for the supplies to Libya and prevents the British from supplying Egypt, it also prevents the British from sinking the Italian Battleships in Taranto much later in the year. So these ships can team up with the German planes to expel the British from the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and a good part of the Indian Ocean. Once Britain is out of the war they can sail to the Black Sea to help the invasion.
Given the series of debacles that the UK had suffered throughout the war, I venture to say that as soon as Alexandria falls to the Axis, Churchill will have to sue for peace.
Last edited:
I think if Britain would have fallen then the invasion of Africa by US forces , reinforced with British and Canadian troops, would have go ahead. The US brass was not shy of taking risks. Remember that Churchill had very great difficulties to withhold them from landing at te West-European beaches instead of Africa.
1) That the Italians transported a lot of supplies to Tripoli,is irrelevant,because,once the supplies were in Tripoli,the ptoblems began :it was very difficult to get these supplies from Libya to Egypt,thus,the fall of Malta would change essentially nothing .
2)There was no way the Italian navy could go to the Black Sea:there was no oil
3)the capture of Egypt(1940 or later) was impossible,because it was impossible to supply a motorized army from Tripoli(it was possible,from Alexandria,but,with very big difficulties):it took Montgomery 3 months to go from Alamein to Tripoli.The war in NA was determined and limited by logistics(see :Logistics and the Desert Fox)
4)As the Mediterranean and the ME had only a minor importance(Britain could do without them),Churchill would not ask for peace .The importance of the Mediterranean started only after the war .
Before the war,Britain imported yearly some 12 million of tons of oil and these were coming from....
1)the Carribean :46.2 % =5.54 million
2) Iran and Iraq :30.8 %= 3.7 million
3) the US :19.2 % = 2.3 million
4) the rest came from Rumania
The following are the production figures for 1940
The Carribean:30.7 million 10.5 % of the world total
Iran and Iraq: 11.3 million 3.8 % of the world total
the SU :30.5 million 10.5 % of the world total
The USA : 182.9 million 62 % of the world total
Total : 293 million
Due to the Italian DOW (june 1940),Britain decided to stop the import of oil from the ME :the Mediterranean was to dangerous and the route via South Africa to long,thus,the SMALL amount of ME oil 3.7 million was easily replaced by oil from the US ;it was no problem for the US:3.7 million was only 2% of their production .
Btw :I should not exagerate the importance of the oil that Germany got from the SU,this was only a small part of the German consumption ;the most important were Rumania and the home production .(this,during the war,before the war,it was,as for Britain,the Carribean)