Time for a historical discussion

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Prydain]

So, if Hitler had let his generals have total command over military operations during the battle of Britain would the allies have launched D day as a successful operation?

Erm, time warp? The Battle of Britain was in 1940. D-day was in 1944.

History records that he micromanaged all forces from that point forward in the conflict, and every deployment had his final decision.

History (almost every MCMXL archive on the subject) also shows that Hitler's commanders planned, Hitler only adjusted the plans and gave specific orders. 'Micromanagement' was all done by the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica, not Hitler.

So say, also if Hermann Wilhelm Göring had not been the commander of the Luftwaffe would the air operations resulted in a defeat of Britain?  History also records that Britain was on the verge of surrender from joint ops from germany including air raids and V-1 attacks.

Time warp again? V1s where not fully used until mid 1944, the same time the allies where about to launch Op Overlord. Britain was never on the verge of surrender, there was talk of armistice in 1940 but after the Battle of Britain was won, the mood changed drastically.

My answer is yes.  On the grounds that germany possessed incredible engineering of aircraft for the day, was using jet propulsion aircraft at that point, and as incredible as the spitfire was, the BF-109 was superior in many respects.

Being from Coventry I detest the "Germans had jet aircraft" rubbish. Sir Frank Whittle invented the Jet engine, the MoD rejected it as a design due to cuts in the military before the war and the possibility it was not workable. Hans von Ohain quickly stepped up to the new technology and designed a working jet engine of his own, thus he gets joint credit for actually ironing out the problems and getting it working.

I also conclude that if Rommel had been given command of all panzer divisions that the allied advance would have been stopped at the beach and not made it to carentan.

Wah? The allies 'made it' to Carentan? The 101st Airborne dropped into the area, it was taken to link up the beaches. If Rundstedt wanted to break the allies back in Normandy he would have gone straight for Sword, possibly Juno to split the beaches and then had Rommel move out in the morning after Hitler gave the order. Sword's flank was defended by the 6th Airborne and it was the most dangerous flank for the allies and only elements of the 6th Airborne defended it until Lovats Commandos relived them. If Rundstedt had re-manned the Merville Battery and had pressure on the eastern flank long enough then the Allies could have taken much longer capturing Caen which was the toughest battle in Normandy and the most vital for both sides.

The reason the Axis lost the Battle of Britain usually falls on five reasons:
1. Radar. A fully integrated system of defence utilising radar was key to the British defence.
2. Lack of heavy bombers. The Luftwaffe had no heavy bombers like the Lancaster, more aircraft had to fly to do the same damage that the Lancaster bomber formations where doing to the Axis cities.
3. When RAF planes where downed, their pilots could bail out and be recovered. The wreck could be salvaged some what. Axis pilots where captured or housed.
4. Aircraft. Hurricanes could take damage, like real bad damage and return to an airstrip. Both Hurricanes and Spitfires where easy to repair and are somewhat easier to maintain. Beaufighters where better night fighters than Bf 110s. Hurricanes could stand up to 109s and Mk IA/ Mk IB/Mk2 Spitfires outclassed them in climb and turn rates and handling was an issue on the 109, especially at low speeds/when climbing, Spitfires also had boost which is comical.
5. Factories in the UK turned out 4 spitfires and 8 Hurricanes per 5 Bf109s. The fact war production in the UK was focused on aircraft more than nonsense tanks and weapons helped.

[AmPmAllied]

Don't forget that the me262 was ready in 1942, but Hitler wanted it able to carry a bomb load and it had to go back to the boards to fit them on. Should have just put them into action early, and designed a real bomber instead.

[Unkn0wn]

My biggest question is why did Briton and France declare war on Germany but not on Russia for the attack on Poland and also the Russian attack on Finland its amazing how the Germans are looked at has the Aggressors when during the war for France the Russians grabbed more land than Germany on the Eastern front and that is also why Hitler attacked the Soviets ....

At the treaty of Munich, Hitler promised that the Sudetens were his last demand. Chamberlain, the British prime minisiter at the time, was holding on to an 'appeasement' policy. He felt that they should 'please' the germans by accepting some of their demands. He found it reasonable that the Germans demanded the German speaking territory back and assumed that all they wanted was one big 'German Reich'. Because of this, they would go really far to to try and prevent another war. The treaty of munich is often considered the biggest diplomatic mistakes in the 20th century as it showed Hitler how the allies were not willing to risk some minor nation for the overall European peace.

France, GB & Russia were all in a 'pact' at the time, although only France had an official alliance with Russia & Poland. One thing you need to know from a historical, diplomatic point of view to understand the 1939 war declarations is that Great Britain never declares war without France backing them up. By demanding the Danzig Corridor and by actually invading on september 1, Hitler shut the door on all possible diplomatic outcomes. Note though that Hitler probably did not expect them to declare war. Italy even tried to get everyone to come to an agreement but it had no use and 2 days later, France declared war. Britain just followed.

Something many people do not know is that originally, the plan (between FR/GB/RU) was for Russia to move troops, through poland, all the way to the polish - german border as they actually feared Hitler was preparing for a move on Poland. Poland however protested to this and prevented any Russian from entering their territory as they feared that once the Russians got in, they'd never get them out anymore.

Stalin was disturbed by these chain of events and realised that the Allies could give him no safety. This then led to the Ribbentrop - Molotov pact, shortly before the invasion of Poland. The allies declaring war on Russia would've been foolish when they already had 1 major power to deal with. Hitler & Stalin did not have a military alliance going, and the allies did not know of actual 'devil's pact' untill the Nurnberg trials.

In addition, it's not correct to state that 'The russians weren't prepared for war'. They were, Stalin actually expected war, as shown by the fact that he was willing to move troops through Poland to engage the Germans. (Mind you, this might've scared the Germans from invading Poland) Even though his army wasn't prepared at all, was in a poor overall condition, Stalin actually thought it was in a very good condition.

The reason the Axis lost the Battle of Britain usually falls on five reasons:
5. Factories in the UK turned out 4 spitfires and 8 Hurricanes per 5 Bf109s. The fact war production in the UK was focused on aircraft more than nonsense tanks and weapons helped.

I do not completely agree, because it has been historically proven that at the time of the Battle of the Britain, axis had roughly 2700 Aircraft in the air fighting the RAF's roughly 1400. This is, a MAJOR air superiority for the Germans.

Radar is definately one of the biggest, if not the biggest, contributor to British victory although I think the strategic failing of the Luftwaffe's High Command should definately be number 2. Not only did the Luftwaffe periodically swap targets when they felt the results were not good enough (ranging from factories to defensive positions, air strips and later cities) they also vastly underestimated the British RAF. More often than not did they come really close to achieve their goals, to then just switch targets because they thought the results were 'unsatisfactory'. Then, after over 1000 Luftwaffe planes had been lost, Hitler took command and just ordered them to hit London in nightly raids. With this he hoped to wear the people out, get them to demand their government to surrender but it had the complete opposite effect.


As for the overall reason as to why they lost the war... I'd say it's something like this. I'm just naming some very important mistakes, in no particular order. It's hard to just find a 'number 1' reason. Usually it's a chain of events that leads to a certain outcome.
1. Not destroying the British Exp. Forces in Dunkerque when they did actually have the chance.
2. Not getting Spain on their side and/or at least securing Gibraltar (=> closing down the Med. Sea)
3. Strategic failure in the Battle over Britain (See above)
4. Signing an alliance with Japan (Japan signed a non-agression pact with Russia and stuck to it, even though they were allied to Germany. Not only that, Japan also made the big mistake of declaring war on the US. Germany just followed a day later.)
5. Opening 'The Eastern Front' without being completely safe on the Western (Britain) & Southern front (Africa)
6. Strategic failures at the Eastern Front (There's a large amount of mistakes that have been made by the Germany Army, of which most Hitler is to be blame)
7. Slow reaction on D-day
8. Hitler's overall incompetance as Supreme Commander

[PrydainII]

I do not completely agree, because it has been historically proven that at the time of the Battle of the Britain, axis had roughly 2700 Aircraft in the air fighting the RAF's roughly 1400. This is, a MAJOR air superiority for the Germans.

I was talking about production/replacements, not how many where in service at the time.

Southern front (Africa)

It would have been impossible for the Axis forces in North Africa to have won anyway. Rommel knew he could only hope for a surrender. Advancing on Cairo would have turned into a similar situation to Stalingrad and Rommel did not have that many men to spend. The British, just like the Russians, could out attrition the Axis forces. Rommel had an Achilles heel in the shape of the Italian forces.

[Rocksitter]

 The Russians were all set for war on the Eastern Front they had the Germans out numbered ,but with  all the new land the USSR was taking and the fact that it was not fortified  properly yet the generals wanted to keep the line back at the original  because it was fortified but Stalin refused ...

 
 


 Rocksitter

[Unkn0wn]

It would have been impossible for the Axis forces in North Africa to have won anyway. Rommel knew he could only hope for a surrender. Advancing on Cairo would have turned into a similar situation to Stalingrad and Rommel did not have that many men to spend. The British, just like the Russians, could out attrition the Axis forces. Rommel had an Achilles heel in the shape of the Italian forces.

This is a direct result of the war on the Eastern Front. Rommel did not get the men & material that were needed for a victory in Africa. That's my point, if they would've secured Africa first, they would've been safer off overall. Although they would've still needed Gibraltar to really control the Med. Sea.

[Silver1Wolf2]

The biggest problem with the Axis during WWII by me is that they didn't develop their tech as best they could and the incompetence of some of their leaders.

[HaroquenD]

Really, the Axis powers had no REALISTIC chance of winning. They simply fought out of their weight class. Atlast in my opnion.

However, the reason for this post is that, anyone who says that Germany and the Axis powers would have been better off without Hitler, forget that he was the brown shit-like paste that held it all together.

Yes, he was a dick. an evil one at that to. However, his force of charisma and overall tactical veiws are what drove the axis war machine in the begining, and what held that together when morale began to plunge.

Without him, Germany would likely have remained under the heel of the french and the versailles treaty. If it werent for the fact he was, most definately, a truely evil dick, he would be ranked right up there with FDR, Winston Churchill and Stalin as a great leader.

And finally, it was the economic revival brought on by the mass of jobs created by the war that was the main force that ended the great depression. So Hitler was indirectly responsible for reviving the world economy.

Just my two cents.

Edit: Just so no one gets the wrong idea, the avatar this was posted under is a totally unrelated coincidence and is infact from the cover of an alternate history book

[Unkn0wn]

I'm sure most people realise that, however Hitler was a poor supreme commander and should have never taken over command of the Wehrmacht.

[HaroquenD]

I'm sure most people realise that, however Hitler was a poor supreme commander and should have never taken over command of the Wehrmacht.

True, it's just that alot of people seem to lump that into the idea of "Hitler was a total hinderance to the german war effort."

[UnLimiTeD]

So, if Hitler had let his generals have total command over military operations during the battle of Britain would the allies have launched D day as a successful operation?

Erm, time warp? The Battle of Britain was in 1940. D-day was in 1944.

Consequences?

History records that he micromanaged all forces from that point forward in the conflict, and every deployment had his final decision.

History (almost every MCMXL archive on the subject) also shows that Hitler's commanders planned, Hitler only adjusted the plans and gave specific orders. 'Micromanagement' was all done by the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica, not Hitler.

Someone allways talking in your side can be a pain in the ass and really hamper your actions and possibilities.

My answer is yes.  On the grounds that germany possessed incredible engineering of aircraft for the day, was using jet propulsion aircraft at that point, and as incredible as the spitfire was, the BF-109 was superior in many respects.

Being from Coventry I detest the "Germans had jet aircraft" rubbish. ...

The Bf-109 was no jet aircraft, it was just well rounded.

@Haroquen: It's funny how your first post is complete rubbish and you actually admit it .
But I absolutely like your second, it brings most peoples oppinion to the point.

[dunny]

i think he means the ME-262

[Unkn0wn]

There was no need for a jet fighter plane by 1941. They had already stored away their plans for operation Sealion and focussed all air operations towards bombing major cities in England. On the eastern front there was even less of a need for these kind of planes as the germans enjoyed massive air superiority throughout the initial years of the operation. Production was thus shifted elsewhere.

Needless to say, if the Me262 came into production in 1941 and was used in a second Battle for Britain, things would've likely not looked so good for the allies who literally stood NO chance against the aircraft. (Although the British would've received some breathing space & lend-lease from the Americans) There are 1944 reports of allied fighter pilots coming across these planes perfectly describing the confusion, fear & feelings of being powerless.

[twzcatinhat]

D-Day would still happen even if Britain was taken over.

If Britain fell to Germany in the early 1940's maybe the war would have ended sooner. !943 the war has started to turn on the axis forces on the East Front supply lines are falling apart and the war in North Africa has come to a close do to mostly lack of supplies and units. If Germany took over Britain that would make a living hell for their supply lines quicker then before. Under this the need to send fuel and other war time goods to the battle front would be less then before. With the mass number of troops and other goods the Russians had at the time and end; the German East Front would have broken faster. Think about all the shipping the German ships would be needed to supply their forces in Britain. I think that the people in England would keep on fighting just like their allied in France. Ports would be hell for the Germans and also it would be easy to raid their ships on the high seas with what ever British ships where left. Other thing is that those ships that the axis are using is also taking up fuel that is very well needed by the late war.

D-Day lunched in Britain but it didn't have to be lunch there if Britain fell. The allies had North Africa great area to have a build up arms. Could have more points on where to land on the axis shore line. But, over all maybe the war in Europe could have ended in late 1942 or the start of 1944. 

[Unkn0wn]

Actually it's unlikely that Britain could've ever been taken over without a U.S intervention taking place as the safety & existence of Great Britain was seen as the safety of the U.S. Losing that safety would, according to the U.S international policy at the time, form a direct threat to the safety of the U.S.

Then it all comes down to how swiftly the U.S would've been able to react before the Germans conquer the entire island. I do believe Germany would've been able to hold off the U.S itself on the condition that no second large front was to be opened. And with U.S pressure on Stalin, that would be no direct guarantee.

It's all theorycraft really, hard to really predict all of this .


Operation sealion was a joke, it's impossible that the Germans would've been able to ever pull it off in the conditions they were in at 1940. People usually forget that the Air Combat was only the initial phase, after that, the German navy would have to succesfully defeat the RN. And while German Air Superiory was given, German Naval superiority was far from it, even if they received air support. (The german naval program was largely ignored during the build-up years, even subs were hardly made en masse.) Even if Germany would've made it past the initial stage (= complete air superiority) the second phase could've never been won.

That being said, Britain didn't have to fall. Disabling Britain's industrial & armed potential would've been sufficient in keeping them isolated and from forming a threat to the Germans although even on that level the Germans failed. (Letting the expeditionary forces escape in Dunkerque, failure to beat the Brits out of Africa, etc)

Hitler made a major mistake in opening a second large front when the first one (Western Front -> GB as a threat) was still not completely secured.

[snipes]

no hitler's true fatal mistake was not producing the atom bomb

[dunny]

Hitler couldn't produce the A-bomb. It was impossible for Germany to do so. It lacked the natural resources to produce such a bomb.

[snipes]

it was not "impossible" but hard lol

[Prydain]

Needless to say, if the Me262 came into production in 1941 and was used in a second Battle for Britain, things would've likely not looked so good for the allies who literally stood NO chance against the aircraft.

No, they did, because we are now changing history and giving the Germans ME-262s, the British get Meteors and Vampires. I have also decided to allot the Japanese with a moving island that can refine hydrogen from the Pacific and give them aircraft that run on this hydrogen. The Americans get McDonalds to storm Europe and expect people to die of heart disease and grow fat as part of their grand war effort. It does not work though... D-day is launched against Rockall and somehow Montgomery ends up in Bermuda with Rommel challenging him to a game of dominoes.

"Time for a historical discussion"

[dunny]

it was not "impossible" but hard lol

No, it was impossible during the period that we are talking about. During the war, the allies always feared Germany's nuclear capabilities. After the surrender of Germany, allied scientist's inspected Germany's nuclear sites and determined that it could never have become a reality.