Parmenian, I agree with your assumption, the Germans were brilliant at the tactical and operational levels of battle. They blundered at the Strategic level. To say German Grand Strategy was pathetic is really misleading. In fact, they had no grand strategy. But this isn't to say the entire German officer class was bereft of understanding grand strategy. In fact many did.
Fritsch, the commander of the army had reservations about Hitler for quite some time. And though Fritsch's background was civilian, he was appointed by Hindenberg because of his understanding of Strategy amoung other things. Hitler saw Fritsch as a block to his grand unthought out plan for European domination. Fritsch who was eventually gotten rid of, saw Hitler for what he was. A man whose insatiable greed for power and unstable mind could bring ruin to Germany.
Any one who argued with Hitler was dismissed. Hitler's motivation stemmed from a bias formed by an earlier envy of the Heer officer class, especially Pussians You state that it was Hitler who backed men like Guderian. He also back Von Manstein and Hoepner. Its more truthfull to say he used these people to further his gains, but underneath the facade of interest he only had contempt for these officers. And in his fantasy laced mind he thought he could do a better job than these people and he knew more than them, etc, etc.
Remember, it was the Fuehrer who dismissed Guderian and quite a few others because they disagreed with his decisions on strategy or rather lack of it at the ost front.
Grand Admiral Raeder saw Hitler's folly from the beginning. The Admiral suggested a brilliant way of defeating the British. He believed Sea Lion was preposterous. But he also believed the defeat of Britain was very possible another way. That way was through North Africa and Egypt and the Suez Canal in particular. With control
of the Suez Canal and continued u-boat pressure in the Atlantic. Britain could eventually be brought to its knees. I wont get into the particular way in which this could be obtained, but there is definatly good reasoning here and lets just say the Admiral made a good case. With the eventual taking of Malta, the Mediterranean would become an Axis Lake, not to mention the infinate amount of fuel for the German states taking.
Hitler had war on his mind from 1934 if not earlier and he should have changed the industrial climate in Germany then. His irrational thinking concerning the quality of German weapons in terms of craftsmanship vs quickly made stamped parts for modern weapons was a terrible detriment to the German armaments industry.
2) Improper use of their allies. Much has been said about the incompetence of the Italian Army. The biggest failure though was on the behalf of the Germans who did little to aid the Italians or the Hungarians, Romanians and Bulgarians. Had the Germans insisted on their Allies using German Equipment and adopting German military systems I think the Germans allies would have been a far more potent force. The Allies in Particular were masters at this, the Indians being a particularly fine example. Had the Germans taken the time and effort to assist more in the training of their allied troops then a lot of their supposed man power problems would never have eventuated.
Germany's biggest disappointment must be Italy. Italy actually had some very good units. Some of there Alpine troops were excellent. But overall Mussolini's ambition's outweighed his manpower and equipment. It appears Hungary, and Rumania as well as Bulgaria were at least two decades behind German battle doctrine let alone quality of troops and equipment. With Hitler so eager for war, would a comprehensive course in German tactics and the use of German weapons help? Maybe and only if he postponed his boneheaded June 22, 1941 move.
3) Inflexible air force. Effective dive bomber and effective torpedo bomber. They had the best people in the world at it as their allies, ie) the Japanese, yet their air force lacked these vital components. With them the Germans could easily have controlled the entire Med and made life substantially more difficult for the Royal Navy in the Atlantic. I think this failure was actually Hitler’s fault as his racial prejudices clearly skewed his perspective.
You can blame the lame developement of fighter aircraft directly on Hitler. Even Field Marshall Erhard Milch, the only Mischlinge, (half-jew) Hitler tolerated, told the Fuehrer, without constant upgrades especially to fighters, Germany would be lost. Milch, by the way was the true force behind the Luftwaffe, not Udet, and certainly not the lazy Goering. Also if Germany had taken North Africa in 41 instead of butting heads with Stalin, the Italian Navy could have policed the Mediterranean for the Axis. With Malta gone, all that is left would be Gibralter. With England on the way down Franco might well have taken the territory. The Mediterannean becomes an Axis lake
4) The Southern Front. There should have been a far greater emphasis on the Med. Had the Germans, and their theoretically better supported Italian allies, been more effective here then the entire scope of the war in the East changes. With the Suez in Axis Hands and the Middle Eastern oil Fields threatened Russia and their Caucasian oilfields seem a lot less safe and the Turks may well have come into the war on the Axis side. There would have been little the British could have done to blunt this attack as they simply lacked the trained manpower to resist a concerted push towards to Middle East.
Basically we agree on this one. But I believe Hitler would have to take Palestine, Syria, and eventually Iran for the Turks to jump on the Axis Ship. But yes, it could have been done.
5) The Eastern Front. Again Doppleganger has some solid ideas here. The “go for broke approach” in 41 was suicide. All the Germans had to do was launch an offensive in 1941 that was designed to destroy the Russian Army. Then in 42, deliver the knockout blow to Moscow, without their central rail hub the Russians would no longer have been able to switch forces between the north and the south so easily and the Germans would have had interior lines. They could have crushed either Leningrad or Stalingrad at their leisure and that’s presuming the Soviets don’t surrender after Stalin Pops himself when Moscow falls. Also bear in mind that Moscow in soviet hands would have put the Turks in the Germans pocket. A Turkish declaration of war would have given the Germans both Russia and in all likelihood the Middle East as well.
Your idea sounds quite easy. But the reality of the situation was quite different. Hitler needed to take Moscow in 41. Moscow was the communication hub of the nation. You take Moscow and youv'e done two important things. You have driven their morale to an all time low and youv'e destroyed their communications. Now you have your choice to attack north towards Leningrad or South towards Sevastopol. Hitler never had enough forces for the broad attack form he adherred to.
But Hitler's intelligence apparatus was lame also. The Russians at this time had the best and most powerfull tanks in the world and the German's had no idea. Stalin had no wish to start a war with Hitler for many reasons. Well not for a good five or six years anyway. The main reason was his lack of officers, because of the purges.
One last thing to note: If he had gone into Russia with the propoganda of freeing the people from Stalin's grasp, he may well of succeded. But this supposed mastermind let his stupid hate fester and carry the day.
Shooting war over in 42/43. New cold war between the Germans and the Allies begins straight afterwards, would anything have really been so different from how our world is now??? [/quote]
If you really believe it wouldn't be that much different, you are fooling yourself.
Parmenian, I did quote you but was unsuccessfull in partitioning the quotes. My Apologies.
