How Would You Win The War For Germany?

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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…

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Originally posted by Blackblue+May 5 2005, 06:19 AM-->(Blackblue @ May 5 2005, 06:19 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DirtyDick@Apr 7 2005, 02:04 AM
One could argue that losing the Battle of Britain would not have seen the UK conquered.

For example, even though stretched to the limit the Royal Navy vastly outnumbered their German adversaries. Without air cover they could have destroyed the German landing forces, albeit with very heavy - yet sustainable - losses, at any stage either before or after the initial landing wave.

The Germans at that time would have been incapable of mounting an airborne assault in the numbers necessary to overwhelm the UK garrison, and given the above, just seizing a beach head would have held little purpose. As already stated, the losses endured on Crete against 20,000 odd rag tag force of lightly armed British and New Zealanders show how vulnerable they were.

Whether this would have left the RN poorly placed to protect her convoys in the short term, and whether the RN presence in the Mediterranean - inferior to the Italians following the collapse of France - would have been sufficient to mount the air attacks on the Italian Fleet during the latter part of 1940, is uncertain.

Richard
[post=32942]Quoted post[/post]

C'mon Dick. And the Aussies!!!

Rgds

Tim D
[post=34003]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

Quite right, Tim.

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

 

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

 

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

This is right. A free hand in Manchuria released these badly needed élite troops for elsewhere.

However, the German advance on Moscow was completely halted and without any posibility of success by the time these divisions reached the front.

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.


One: he didn't send them alone nor all at the same time.

Two: these troops could NOT have gone into Egypt as easily as you are stating. Those 100.000 men have to be supplied with food, ammunition, water, fuel and other things. Without naval superiority, without well-fitted and close-to-the-front ports and without an adequate motor supply system they wouldn't have gone far at all.

OK, Rommel would have had twice as much men, but he would have got twice as much recquirement of supplies and twice as much supply problems.

It's easy: the Axis failed to successfully supply 100.000 men. How could have they well-supplied twice that number? No way at all!

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.


Well, these generals were making Hitler the scape-goat of their own incompetence. Every single German general in the 1950s, specially when interviewed by Liddel-Hart, claimed their typical: 'Had it been done the way I said, we'd have won the war'.

It was very easy to blame the failure of the great operation 'Barbarossa' on the Russian winter and Hitler's delays. However, we now know that the German High Command blew it by sheer military incompetence.

The USSR's 'advanced road network' could not be used before the second half of June 1944. Why not? Because the snow had melted very late and all roads were turned into swamps (as happened later on, on September 1941). Had the Germans attacked on May 15th, as scheduled, their advance would have been halted by General Mud almost immediately.

Second, German Panzer and motorised divisions were not completely equipped till late June, just after all German civil services had been stripped out of their cars and lorries, since the German industry could not cope with the production demmands.

Hitler had the opportunity to deal the british a crushing blow.

He may have had the opportunity, but definately not the means to deliver such a blow.

Without 'Barbarossa', what units and matériel would the German War machine have available to throw on the British? 150 divisions, 4.000 tanks, 8.000 guns and 4.500 planes. Quite impressive, indeed.

4.500 planes could have, without a doubt, swept the RAF from the skies over the Mediterranean, but would have only been a severe (not fatal) problem for the RN or the Army. Could the Luftwaffe alone destroy British presence in North Africa? No. Could the Luftwaffe on its own transfer 10 German divisions across the sea and keep them well-supplied? No, no and no.

Hitler's main mistake was to overrate Germany's capacity. She simply could NOT defeat ANY of the 3 Allied powers, one by one, let alone all at the same time.

 

well losing the battle of britain probably did him in on the long run, so I guess I would have spend more money on the luftwaffe and kriegsmarine and chucked everything I had at the brits.
Having won the battle for britain would have taken out 1 enemy, would have enabled the germans to send all their units to the eastfront and stop spending money on the defence of the westcoast, and even if the Americans then still dared to go to war with Germany they wouldnt have had a island they could use for D-day.
Imagine the yanks having to cross the atlantic with their fleet...the german u-boots waiting...the enigma never been captured...eek!

 

Fighting words Dick (no offense David). Calling an Aussie a Kiwi is akin to calling you a Frenchman!! ((Vis a vis calling Kiwis an Aussie I am sure).

Tim




Originally posted by DirtyDick+May 8 2005, 01:35 AM-->(DirtyDick @ May 8 2005, 01:35 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Blackblue@May 5 2005, 06:19 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-DirtyDick@Apr 7 2005, 02:04 AM
One could argue that losing the Battle of Britain would not have seen the UK conquered.

For example, even though stretched to the limit the Royal Navy vastly outnumbered their German adversaries. Without air cover they could have destroyed the German landing forces, albeit with very heavy - yet sustainable - losses, at any stage either before or after the initial landing wave.

The Germans at that time would have been incapable of mounting an airborne assault in the numbers necessary to overwhelm the UK garrison, and given the above, just seizing a beach head would have held little purpose. As already stated, the losses endured on Crete against 20,000 odd rag tag force of lightly armed British and New Zealanders show how vulnerable they were.

Whether this would have left the RN poorly placed to protect her convoys in the short term, and whether the RN presence in the Mediterranean - inferior to the Italians following the collapse of France - would have been sufficient to mount the air attacks on the Italian Fleet during the latter part of 1940, is uncertain.

Richard
[post=32942]Quoted post[/post]

C'mon Dick. And the Aussies!!!

Rgds

Tim D
[post=34003]Quoted post[/post]


Quite right, Tim.

You Kiwis are big-hearted to remember to mention your Australian cousins! :P
[post=34190]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

 

Oh yes, never confuse an Australian with a New Zealander or vice versa. Two very different nations. I actually saw it best on the warships. Australian frigates do their ships' numbers in American style: FFG 01 being HMAS Adelaide, while New Zealand ships do theirs in British style, F-21 being HMNZS Canterbury. That's both the code and how they're painted on the hull...Australian ships taking the American style of number, New Zealand the British. The reasons are complex, but include both the supply system -- Australia coming off the US production pipeline -- and the national organization. Australia has seven states in the American federal style, while New Zealand is one nation: one police force, one fire service, and so on.

Different heritage, too: Australia settled by convict labor, New Zealand by free farmers. That creates a different attitude to England. Australia has a love-hate relationship with the Pommies, New Zealand is more like England.

Very different folks.

 

Originally posted by Blackblue+Jun 6 2005, 07:31 AM-->(Blackblue @ Jun 6 2005, 07:31 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Fighting words Dick (no offense David). Calling an Aussie a Kiwi is akin to calling you a Frenchman!! ((Vis a vis calling Kiwis an Aussie I am sure).

Tim




Originally posted by DirtyDick@May 8 2005, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Blackblue@May 5 2005, 06:19 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-DirtyDick@Apr 7 2005, 02:04 AM
One could argue that losing the Battle of Britain would not have seen the UK conquered.

For example, even though stretched to the limit the Royal Navy vastly outnumbered their German adversaries. Without air cover they could have destroyed the German landing forces, albeit with very heavy - yet sustainable - losses, at any stage either before or after the initial landing wave.

The Germans at that time would have been incapable of mounting an airborne assault in the numbers necessary to overwhelm the UK garrison, and given the above, just seizing a beach head would have held little purpose. As already stated, the losses endured on Crete against 20,000 odd rag tag force of lightly armed British and New Zealanders show how vulnerable they were.

Whether this would have left the RN poorly placed to protect her convoys in the short term, and whether the RN presence in the Mediterranean - inferior to the Italians following the collapse of France - would have been sufficient to mount the air attacks on the Italian Fleet during the latter part of 1940, is uncertain.

Richard
[post=32942]Quoted post[/post]

C'mon Dick. And the Aussies!!!

Rgds

Tim D
[post=34003]Quoted post[/post]


Quite right, Tim.

You Kiwis are big-hearted to remember to mention your Australian cousins! :P
[post=34190]Quoted post[/post]
[post=35054]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

Mais oui, mon brave, malheuresement, c'est vrai.

 

Originally posted by Friedrich H@May 10 2005, 01:29 AM

Well, these generals were making Hitler the scape-goat of their own incompetence. Every single German general in the 1950s, specially when interviewed by Liddel-Hart, claimed their typical: 'Had it been done the way I said, we'd have won the war'.

It was very easy to blame the failure of the great operation 'Barbarossa' on the Russian winter and Hitler's delays. However, we now know that the German High Command blew it by sheer military incompetence.

[post=34321]Quoted post[/post]

German Forces was one of the most powerful force in the world, their Generals as well were considered among the best. Hitler in the other hand, lacked of trust towards his own generals. He did not gave a free hand in his generals to act base on their skills and knowledge. Infact he was kept dictating on what should do from time to time. What it is having a dog but you bark on your own.

Hitler orders, were, in the many cases was lacked of understanding the situations on the field, for him it was the priority of goals or objectives was important ignoring the fact of limitations. Without full autorization of using force available to the latest development was indeed disable those generals to perform to their fullest. Base on that Germans leader has every right on to blame Hitler over their defeat.

Theese applied to the Luftwaffe, they had great great technology, superb pilots, leads by outstanding Aces, However the Top man was Dull, One instant, was giving order of building Strategic bombers has to able to performed a dive bombing mission. another instant was issuing order of ME262 only use as Bomber unit.

Russian at the early stage of Barbarossa was exactly lead by the same way as Hitler did. Stalin kept issuing order of no retreat or die, and that proved nothing but catastrophic outcome to them. Only on the later years, that Stalin gave a free hand on his Generals on how to defeat the invader. Western Leaderw on the other hand, USA and UK, seems gave a full trust on their generals, except providing goals and objectives.

It is a very simple management principle, you set the goal, objective, plan, supervise and let heaven decide on the outcome, put trust on your men.

 

So was I mate.

TD

 

…their Generals as well were considered among the best.

But were not at all the very best. All the German general's obsession with personal glory, emphasis on brute force rather than weell-thought battles and complete disregard for strategy and logistics were a fatal mix. That's what doomed Germany in WWI, AND WWII.

Hitler in the other hand, lacked of trust towards his own generals. He did not gave a free hand in his generals to act base on their skills and knowledge. Infact he was kept dictating on what should do from time to time. What it is having a dog but you bark on your own.

No, that's not entirely true. Again, after the war the generals blamed it all on Hitler, so they could wash their names and cover their own failures.

At Dunkirk, by example. Did Hitler ordered the tanks to stop because he wanted to or because the most experienced general, Von Rundstedt, and the battlefield commander, Von Kleist, adviced him to?

At Kursk, did Hitler launch 'Zitadelle' just because he felt like it or because the OKH's Chief of Staff, colonel general Zeitzler, insisted on it?

Hitler orders, were, in the many cases was lacked of understanding the situations on the field, for him it was the priority of goals or objectives was important ignoring the fact of limitations.

It was a German tradition to ignore limitations! Like the German's stupid disregard for the Allies' superior firepower, superior deceit and intelligence and superior operational skills.

Without full autorization of using force available to the latest development was indeed disable those generals to perform to their fullest. Base on that Germans leader has every right on to blame Hitler over their defeat.

No, they don't. It is one of the traditions of German generalship to put one's tactical interests before the general strategy. The battles of Anzio and Cassino, by example, in which the Germans gave a harsh time to the Allies, but in detriment of their own overall fighting capacities. In the east, also, the generals loved to apply general Von Falkenhayn's WWI immidiate counter-attack and holding ground tactics. There was no need for Hitler to order battailon commanders to throw one or two companies into battle every time the enemy pierced their line.

Theese applied to the Luftwaffe, they had great great technology, superb pilots, leads by outstanding Aces, However the Top man was Dull, One instant, was giving order of building Strategic bombers has to able to performed a dive bombing mission. another instant was issuing order of ME262 only use as Bomber unit.

The entire Luftwaffe was an ill-designed airforce. It may have been suited for Blitzkrieg campaigns and knocking out third-rate air forces like the Polish, Yugoslavian, French or early Soviet ones. But the Luftwaffe was not strong enough to secure absolute air supperiority over the Mediterranean or the English Channel, nor to defend the Reich against strategic bombing nor to defend its ground troops against superior tactical air forces. And Hitler didn't need to stick his nose for the Luftwaffe and aeronautic industry's engineers to waste millions and waste lots of time investigating 1.000 super-weapons projects and crazy useless stuff. Or what about the OKL's disregard for modernisation? 'The 109 worked pretty good in 1940, why shouldn't it work as great in 1944?'

Western Leaderw on the other hand, USA and UK, seems gave a full trust on their generals, except providing goals and objectives.

Are you sure? Churchill was in many respects similar to Hitler, including the fact that he thought himself a military genious. He was good, without a doubt, but not that good.

 

Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Jun 7 2005, 02:17 AM
Oh yes, never confuse an Australian with a New Zealander or vice versa. Two very different nations.

Australia has seven states in the American federal style

Very different folks.
[post=35068]Quoted post[/post]

Kiwiwriter,

Actually it has six states and two territories (Northern Territory) & (Australian Capital Territory) the latter providing us with CANberra our national capital)

However defined, Australia is the only continent with one federal government and a vast land area not much smaller than mainland United States. (30 times larger than NZ & 32 times larger than the UK. Our little Tasmanian island (1% of Australia's land mass is 3 times larger than Sicily.

With respect to the love hate realtionship between the Aussies & the Poms, most comes back to the way (as you rightly stated) settled by convicts so my ancestors were treated as second class citizens even though they emigrated from Gloucestershire on one side and Enniskillen on the other.

Let's not forget the ANZACS, the young men & women who (however treated) that cream of the youth of both countries, stood up and fought for "King & country" in many conflicts. The percentage of forces from both countries comparitive to population was always at the higher level.

When it came to the nitty gritty, most of the allied countries WW1 or 2 were pleased to know that NZ's or Aussies were protecting their flanks.

We are all different but look out those who try to take away our right to be so.


Geoff

 

Throughout Barbarossa, Hitler lacked any respect for his Commanders, despite their obvious superior military knowledge and experience. Time and again, men like Manstein, Rommel, Model and Guderian showed that they were able to overcome situations where they were faced with superior manpower and/or weaponry through sheer tactical brilliance, but time and time again found their efforts thwarted by Hitler's insistence on orders to "stand fast", whcih proved catastrophic on more than one occasion, most notably Stalingrad, but also the Courland, the Ruhr, and countless others. I often wonder how, if Manstein had been appointed Commander in Chief in the East as recommended after the dismissal of Brauchitsch, the conflict would have been fought, and what the outcome would have been.