How Would You Win The War For Germany?

[Friedrich H]

Rommel isn't mediocre.

Rommel was a tactial genious, but a mediocre strategist.

He was outnumbered.

Yes he was. But to claim that the British won only because they wore more is disrepectful and false. They won not because they were more, but because they fought better.

And the Brits had Shermans!

Yes, they did. And Rommel's Mark IVs ended up in the bottom of the Mediterranean thanks to his fatal mistake of underestimating Malta's real importance.

[Juanra]

Oh, and Hitler didn't cross the bloody channel BECAUSE HE WAS LOSING THE BOB! And the US attacked also in NA.

[blacksheep]

The Germans may have had a chance to defeat Russia but there were several things Hitler needed to address, first start the offensive earlier in the spring, this may have resulted in the capture of Moscow. More important then the above noted point was, I agree with Grand Admiral Raedar who had tried unsuccessfully to convince Hitler in the importance of knocking Britain out of the war by crushing them in the Mediterranean. With this threat removed, as the Germans were not able to accomplish same In battle of Britain, Rommel may have been able to move into Egypt up through Turkey and achieved greater success in capturing the all important Oil resources with the rest of the German Army. Another important point was that Hitler had a resource in the Russian people he never utilized. Not all Russia supported Stalin and his style of Goverment. Had Hitler utilized this resource instead of alienating them through the use of terror squads who know what effect it could of had in his campaign in the east. So three important points I believe
1. First remove Britain in Mediterranean before taking on Russia
2. Start offensive as early as possible in spring when invading Russia which may have had to wait until following spring
3. Utilize Russian people's as a resource re: offensive instead of alienating same. The Russian people realized they were fighting for their lives more so then fighting for Stalin which only bolstered Stalin's cause.

[Friedrich H]

The Germans may have had a chance to defeat Russia but there were several things Hitler needed to address, first start the offensive earlier in the spring, this may have resulted in the capture of Moscow.

They could NOT launch the offensive before the second half of June. Defrost came very late that year and the Army took too long to equip and fit its motorised units.

1. First remove Britain in Mediterranean before taking on Russia

It would be interesting how this could have been achieved, taking into account the German High Command's incompetence, the Axis non-co-operation strategy and their absolute inferiority in resources…

[blacksheep]

That was my point, Germany, I believe had the resources to defeat Britain, Allies, in the Mediterranean if Hitler would have given Rommel what he needed to carry on the war and push them out of Egypt in mid 1941. Hitler would later remove a vast amount of resources from the east due to Operation Torch but by then it was too late. That would have been sufficient I believe had Hitler done so when Rommel requested same in 1941. Hitler was too stubborn to do so because of his total obsession with the east and taking Russia. By neutralizing the Allies in the Mediterranean in 1941 and I am only saying if as this is in hindsight, Rommels Afrika Korps could then perhaps pushed up through Turkey and secured the vital oil resources along with other German units to feed the vast army machine that was Germany. Once this had been completed then Hitler may have been able to pursue the eastern campaign the following spring 1942. Torch may have then went on the back burner who knows. But Hitler wanted Russia first and ignored the Allies in the Mediterranean, 1941, ie: Libya and Egypt. So Rommel fought a campaign without what in his estimate was the appropriate resources to secure victory. Who knows how this may have impacted Operation Torch. Thus then concentrate the full German army towards the east in early spring 42 if Rommel had been successful and the allies neutralized there. Correct me if I am wrong but couldn't the German army have advanced in May 1941 only for Hitler's terrible decision to go after Hungary for not agreeing to his plan to have a puppet gov't. Hitler then turned a portion of his Barbarossa forces due to what he called defiance on Hungary's part. This set his time table for Barbarossa back six weeks, a monumental mistake. My point is that maybe if these events had occurred, Germany has a opportunity to possibly achieve its goal in the east provided the weather was agreeable in early spring. I am only answering here what I believe could have contributed too a German victory in the east whether it was spring 41 start date May or neutralizing mediterranean 41 and Barbarossa spring 42 in May.

Blacksheep

[Friedrich H]

That was my point, Germany, I believe had the resources to defeat Britain, Allies, in the Mediterranean

That's precisely my point. Germany didn't have such resources. Germany, in reality, could NOT keep half-supplied two miserable divisions through the Mediterranean.

Even if there was no eastern front, and, therefore, 150 divisions free to fight the Western Allies, with what aircraft and ships is Germany going to mantain a 10-division-Army across the sea into Libya, Egypt or, even worse, the Middle East?

Rommels Afrika Korps could then perhaps pushed up through Turkey and secured the vital oil resources

Again. How is this Army going to get to Turkey, 4.000 km away, and fight there? With what fuel, water, food and ammunition?

The Italo-German forces, again in real life, could not successfully mantain a supply line less than 1.000 km long through the Lybian desert. How, then, you expect them to keep one 4.000 km long all the way into Turkey?

But let's supposse you get those oild fields. What do you do with the oil? With what pipes or with what ships are you going to get that oil to Europe?

…along with other German units to feed the vast army machine that was Germany.

A very awkward, weak and ill-designed war machine, by the way. Which is something people fail to understand; Goebbel's propaganda was very effective.

Correct me if I am wrong but couldn't the German army have advanced in May 1941 only for Hitler's terrible decision to go after Hungary for not agreeing to his plan to have a puppet gov't.

You are wrong. First, Hungary was a member of the Axis nations. You may be referring to Yugoslavia and Allied Greece. This, however, did NOT affect the launching of Operation 'Barbarossa' in any way. Defrost came late, the Wehrmacht took longer to be equipped and the troops used in the Balcans got to the USSR on schedule.

[Juanra]

Turkey was neutral. Take MALTA!!!!!!!!! That's about it.

[blacksheep]

Japan signed treaty of neutrality, non-aggression pact wit Russia on April 13/41 a crucial blow later to Germany. Had Japan not done so this could have helped Germany possibly secure victory and prevent Russia from transferring some of it's best Siberian divisions from the east to Moscow

Hitler sent approx. a quarter of a million men, German and Italian troops into Tunisia ahead of the allies, Americans, Nov. /42. Had Rommel received even half of these troops a few months before, and particularly in 1941, he may have been beyond the Nile and the anglo-american landing in North Africa may not have taken place. Hitler reinforced Rommel to late. Surely this could have made a huge difference in a later campaign against Russia with the outcome possibly success for Germany.

Friedrich you mention the Barbarossa offensive could not have occurred until later due to a late thaw but isn't this a difference of opinion amongst historians. Defenders of Hitler say his turning on Yugoslavia, I wrongly identified same as Hungary in last post, delaying Barbarossa by 4-6 weeks, was genius on his part due to late thaw. Others particularly Field Marshall Paulus and at time chief planner of the Russian campaign the army general staff testified at Nuremberg that Hitler's decision to go after Yugoslavia and Greece set beck schedule by 5 weeks, further Field Marshal Rundstedt identified to the allies after the war that the Balkans, Yugoslavia and Greece, set back Barbarossa by approx 4 weeks and was very costly. This presents to me the opinion that the campaign may have possibly been able to start earlier and these generals were implying same, and I believe very credible.

In March 1941 Rommel had the British on their heels and was only a few miles from the Egyptian border. Coupled with the Germans strong hold in the Balkans
the British in the middle east were very vulnerable. With this development Hitler chose not to take advantage and continued to focus on the east, Russia.
Hitler failed to realize the blow dealt Britain at that time. Even Iraq who were pro axis had advocated to Hitler to assist them in removing a British air base to drive the british out of the country but Hitler chose to provide little support , few planes an arms. With Crete taken on May 27/ 41 hitler had several options in the middle east. Bottom line he did not capitalize due to wanting Russia first, this was a huge blunder. Hitler had the opportunity to deal the british a crushing blow. Had he succeeded and then turned on Russia maybe the following spring and with Japan not in a neutrality pact with Russia, and Germany in control of the mediterranean, middle east who knows the outcome. This is my idea of how Germany may have defeated Russia although I believe Russia had too many resources but the German blitzkrieg had been so powerful up til that time. Britain had no American support in 1941 like she would later in 1942 so 1941 was a pivotal year for Hitler and the decisions he made re: Africa and Rommel and Barbarossa were significant.

[DirtyDick]

Originally posted by Blackblue+May 5 2005, 06:19 AM-->

C'mon Dick. And the Aussies!!!

Rgds

Tim D

Quoted post

[/b]

Quite right, Tim.

You Kiwis are big-hearted to remember to mention your Australian cousins! :P

[DirtyDick]

Thought I would add:

By far the majority of (rapidly dwindling) British gold reserves were moved in 1940 to a huge underground vault in Canada, guarded principally by the RCMP. It could not have fallen into German hands even if Britain had (somehow) been invaded or sued for peace.

Similarly, Britain was holding in trust a huge amount of gold belonging to defeated nations such as The Netherlands (they also had a large number of diamonds taken from banks and dealers in Amsterdam).

Moreover, commanding officers of ships at sea were instructed to head directly to the USA or Commonwealth nations upon any British surrender, irrespective of what subsequent British leaders dictated; they were even provided with the means to obtain fuel from neutral nations to ensure they could make the journey.

As the King was also head of the Empire, and most especially the white Dominions populated by erstwhile British subjects, the British forces would have been better placed to carry on the War, or at least establish themselves overseas (backed up - if at first only tacitly - by the USA). Consequently, I doubt the mixed loyalties evident in parts of the Free French forces would have been much of a factor, leading, for example, to Admirals handing over their ships or overseas garrisons surrending upon the command of a distant puppet government.

Richard