Germany Could Have Easily Won Ww1 & Ww2

[MrWhiteMan]

A country of then about 69,300,000 took on the entire world and very nearly won.

And, if you look at the ultimate winners (given the Marshall plan among others) you could easily state that ultimately, the United States and the former (hint hint) Soviet Union really lost that war.

Japan nearly pawned us during the 1980's.

And Germany is currently the prima facia in the European Union . . . the third Triumvirate if there ever was one.

[Zero]

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know much about military history myself. But the point is that Syphilis man didn't win.

[Anti-Red]

Actually the only reason Germany almost one was because Hitler and those various dicks ate up all the resources for the war, unlike free countries with free economies, it all went to war. Germany was badly beaten to a pulp and had to be rebuilt, while the US economy boomed after WWII.

[Publius]

A country of then about 69,300,000 took on the entire world and very nearly won.

The first, no way.

The Second, concievably, though I don't think they could have ultimately defeated the US.

They could have taken Britain, could have taken Russia, but if it came down to a war between Germany and the US, the US would have won.

Too many men, too much infrastucture, too much resistance from conquered countries.



And, if you look at the ultimate winners (given the Marshall plan among others) you could easily state that ultimately, the United States and the former (hint hint) Soviet Union really lost that war.


Not really.

We paid for the Marshall Plan without much problem. I mean, the 50s were the greatest boom in the country's history.

The Soviets increased in power due to the war, I believe.



Japan nearly pawned us during the 1980's.

No, that was merely the spouting from some protectionist hacks.



And Germany is currently the prima facia in the European Union . . . the third Triumvirate if there ever was one.

I'm not worried.

[Publius]

Actually the only reason Germany almost one was because Hitler and those various dicks ate up all the resources for the war, unlike free countries with free economies, it all went to war.

Not really.

They ultimately lost because they had no long range, heavy bombers, and because we took away their oil supplies.


Germany was badly beaten to a pulp and had to be rebuilt, while the US economy boomed after WWII.

The German Miracle ring a bell?

[Anti-Red]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:36 AM
The German Miracle ring a bell?
Aye, but that did not happen until Konrad Adenauer came along, while ours started immediately, theirs did not start till five or six or seven years later.

[LSD]

A country of then about 69,300,000 took on the entire world

OK, first of all, Germany did not "take on the world", they took on very specific countries at very specific times. Remember, when the war started, Russia, Spain, the US, and most of southeastern Europe were officially "neutral". Italy and Japan were out and out allies of Germany.

All that Germany really had to deal with, originally, was France, the low countries, and Britain. Yes, she did a good job against them (thanks to some innovative strategies and some brilliant tacticians), but the idea of "Germany against the world" really is a myth.

It's also worth noting that, contrary to allied propaganda, Germany never wanted to "take over the world". Hitler was meglomaniacal, but he wasn't "world domination" meglomaniacal.

Hitler's "dream" for Germany was a continental power with a sphere of influence covering all of eastern Europe while England maintained her maritime empire and America ruled in the west.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but utlimately Hitler was envisaging a return to the classical "empires" period of the mid-to-late nineteenth century.

He was a romantic at heart, not a radical.


and very nearly won.

:lol:

Hardly.

Germany could not have won. Strategic errors from begining to end doomed her war effort almost before it even started.

The Blitzkrieg was a brilliant strategy and German engineers made some stagering advances under National Socialism, but ultimately the romantic regressiveness of the ideology took its toll on the war effort.

Antisemitism drove out many potentially useful Germans and casual racism transformed potential subjects into "racial enemies".

Without the racial politics of the Third Reich, the German army might have had a chance of maintaining its imperial occupations. But the very policy that inspired the whermacht to march against the untermenschen also drove those untermenschen to fight back.

They really had no choice; it was either fight or be exterminated. In some, lucky, cases, life as a third-class citizen was available, but then that was never truly a life at all.

The Germans failed to learn the lesson that the Romans had taught the western world, local expansion only works if you expand the franchise along with the borders. Attempting "settler colonization" along one's own borders was always a suicidal plan.

And even putting aside the collosal failures of the German state, there remains the simple fact that a three front war was always unwinable.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler condemns the imperial Germans for opening a second front in the first world war, but he himself would commit a far greater sin when, by invading Russia and delcaring war on the US (two completely unnescessary actions), he opened his country to a stagering three fronts.

Yes, Germany needed new sources of oil, but Barbarossa was an obvious white elephant from the begining. If it hadn't been for Stalin's ineffectiveness, the invasion would have been stopped sooner; but even as it was, it was a devastating defeat for Germany.

And threatening the US? To curry favour with Japan of all places? Why? Even Hitler's own generals were appaled by that incredible lapse in judgment. Next to invading Russia, it was probably his greatest military blunder.

In the end, though, "National Socialism" was a ephemeral entity by nature. It simply could not deliver on its "racial" and "national" promises and its self-destructive romanticism could not help but eventually implode into a masturbatory orgy of reactionary flagelation.

As it turns out, the US/USSR was there to clean up the mess. But regardless, Germany would have ended up in the same place: divided, scattered, and ashamed.

The German state was an artifical construct from the begining, an attempt to erase 1500 years of history with the stroke of a Prussian pen. That it ultimately collapsed should not surprise anyone, but that it had to take 50 million innocent victims with it is, of course, a tragedy.

World War II was the last of the great inter-European battles, it was the last act of the Fall of the Roman Empire. It could not have but ended with a divided and weakened Europe. The dream of a "continental empire" was dead before it even entered Hitler's delusional thoughts.

Germany might have lost in a different way, but she never could have won.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 06:32 PM
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know much about military history myself. But the point is that Syphilis man didn't win.
Speak for yourself comrade. Some of us are still waging that battle ;)

[Morag]

Word to LSD.

I'd argue that by 1940, when they had drawn Britain in (with it's deep, if no longer fathomless pockets), Germany was done for. It might have taken until 1942 to turn the momentum, but the Germans couldn't have defeated the British Empire, + the USSR and later the US. It’s not just because they stopped the bombing during 1940, or because they didn’t have a tactical air force to rival the Brits, but because the entire operation was based on the assumption that the democracies would never fight Germany and that in the end the Nazis would be fighting the USSR; Hitler wanted to control Eastern Europe and dominate it, something he couldn't do with the USSR. (And don’t forget that some in Britain, France and the US wanted to force Germany to expand eastward to screw over the Russians- Britain guaranteed Germany’s western borders at Locarno, but not it’s eastern borders, and the French turned to a defensive military policy by the late 20s, meaning it couldn’t enforce the alliances with Poland and Czechoslovakia [although the policy had other reasons, good ones, as well, and may or may not have been cowardly, depending on how you look at it])

WWI, though, they might have won- I tend to agree that WWI and II are the same war divided by a generation- but Germany had this stupid habit of getting to many nations on the other side of the trench/Channel.

Who won in the end? No one, of course. They were wars fought for conquest and dominance. But when looking at winners and losers of the war, you can’t just say “Oh, the USSR collapsed, so they lost WWII,” otherwise you could say, “Oh, the US is trillions of dollars in debt. They lost.” No, they certainly came out on top. Japan lost- it’s economic turn around was through the hard work and determination of the people, and rigid economic policies. The Germany lost and was just as ravaged as Japan, notwithstanding nuclear attacks. They’re turn around was based also on hard work, but also help and Cold War mentality.

In the grand scheme, though, I don't think it matters if the German Miracle occured five minutes or five years after the war- they still lost and became domesticated to the international status quo and, while economically dominant, did not attain the aims of total domination of Europe. Not to say that they should be to concerned that they lost the war, though; like Japan, they've certainly come out on top.

[RebelDog]

Germany lost WW2 because it had bitten of far more than it could chew. With Britain, USSR and the USA fighting against them they had not a hope in hell. The productive might of the USSR and the USA was impssible to compete with. German armament production was at its best in 1944 but it was still misrable compared to what the allies could produce. Sheer weight of numbers won, as you would expect it to.

[Janus]

The Blitzkrieg was a brillian strategy
It was for a while but a counter-strategy was quickly developed (originally by the Polish) that was used later on.

[Zingu]

Its pretty unrealistic to take on three major industrial powers all at the same time.

[spanishinquisition]

Germany could easily have smashed up Europe far more if they were trying.

I dont suppose any of you guys knew that Hitler had a nuclear weapon? Thats right boys and girls. Hitler had the bomb. What do you say to that? It was the wonder weapon Hitler had been pinning his hopes upon to save the war at the last minute. HE HAD IT! Smaller than the Hiroshima weapon Ill grant but it was there all right. This is new info by a Berlin Historian.

What do you think his table talk of saving the war at five minutes AFTER midnight referred to?

There are independently verifyable sources detailing a huge explosion killing thousands in southern Germany just a few weeks prior to Germanys surrender.

Have any of you read the biography of Skorzeny? The commando who rescued Mussolini? In it he claims Hitler told him of the nuclear weapon and was highly enthusaistic about it. A few days later however, Hitler told Skorzeny he had no wish to turn Europe into a nuclear wasteland. He knew the allies copied German gas after all.

Not the total monster you thought eh?

[Free Left]

Germany could easily have smashed up Europe far more if they were trying.

I dont suppose any of you guys knew that Hitler had a nuclear weapon? Thats right boys and girls. Hitler had the bomb. What do you say to that? It was the wonder weapon Hitler had been pinning his hopes upon to save the war at the last minute. HE HAD IT! Smaller than the Hiroshima weapon Ill grant but it was there all right. This is new info by a Berlin Historian.

What do you think his table talk of saving the war at five minutes AFTER midnight referred to?

There are independently verifyable sources detailing a huge explosion killing thousands in southern Germany just a few weeks prior to Germanys surrender.

Have any of you read the biography of Skorzeny? The commando who rescued Mussolini? In it he claims Hitler told him of the nuclear weapon and was highly enthusaistic about it. A few days later however, Hitler told Skorzeny he had no wish to turn Europe into a nuclear wasteland. He knew the allies copied German gas after all.

Not the total monster you thought eh

W...T...F :blink: :blink: :blink:

Ahem, apart from your lack of any evidence or info from another source other than yourself, this notion that Hitler had a atomic bomb is a complete shambollocks.
If Hitler had a atomic weapon he would have most certainly have used it. He turned hundreds of miles of Russian land into charred wasteland.
You say he didn't wanna turn Europe into a Nuclear wasteland? :lol:
He turned hundreds of miles of Russian land into charred wasteland and in his final few months he didn't who went down with him, he gassed hundreds of Berlin women and children for no reason whatsoever and bombed his own cities for "not fighting to the death".
And if he didn't wnat to destry Europe he would have most certainly wanted to destroy the Soviets. Moscow would have been destroyed.
And anyway when the V2 was created Hitler wanted to bomb London to a pulp if he had a nuke he would have fulfilled that vision.
Also, if the Germans had a nuke the Allies would have found the scientists, engineers or techicians who worked on it and the apparatus used to make it or the craters from where it was tested.

[Goatse]

That's the biggest load of shit I've ever heard, defying not only historical fact, but common logic.

[Si Pinto]

I'm not too sure what this topic has to do with politics but anyway.

As a WWII historian myself, I think the basic issues that led to the defeat of Germany were;

a) War on too many fronts - Any strategist worth their salt would tell you that wars on two fronts are to be avoided, by the beginning of 1942 the Axis was at war with Britain and the commonwealth countries, USA, Free France and the USSR, not to mention the Partisan activity behind the lines which used up a lot of Axis resources, whole army groups were required to police France, Yugoslavia and of course the USSR. Look at all the different fronts that the Axis forces were engaged in, in 1942/43.

b) Tactics - The Germans relied far too much on blitzkreig. This tactic was only useful when your army is on the attack. At no point in WWII did the Germans come up with a viable defensive plan, look at the mess they made of Stalingrad, the 2nd Kharkov battle, Normandy etc.

The other problem with blitzkreig is that it makes no provisions for the need to police the ground it takes. This was demonstrated in many countries were Partisan activity hampered the Axis forces throughout the war.

c) Equipment - The German use of Blitzkreig meant that certain types of technology were not developed, the Germans even admitted this and then tried to bridge the gap in the last 2 years of the war be creating 'super' weapons, the vast majority of which never got off the ground or even off the drawing board.

Lack of heavy bombers, aircraft carriers, the holding back of the jet fighters when they could have been available much earlier, proves this to be true.

d) Hitler - Tried to be the worlds greatest strategist and failed utterly, thank god. In the hands of capable commanders the war could have gone on for many years, resulting in the Allies dropping the bomb on a German city rather (or as well as) a Japanese one.

[Free Left]

I believe strongly that Germany did not have a hope in hell of taking on the USSR and winning. Even if Britian did make peace with them in 1940 or 1941, the USSR would have still have defeated Germany with there vast manpower and materials of war.

But, I do think Germany could have won WWI if Van Moltke had stayed with the Schiefflen plan and had diverted more divisions to the west so the right arm of the attack could be as strong as it was needed for it to work.
They could have at least defeated France quickly and as we know Russia at that time was on the brink of collapse and was not industrialised enough to really take he offensive to the Austrians and Germans. Britian would have probably decided without allies on the continent the game was up and make peace.
Britian could have dragged the US after France had fallen but the US was very isolateed form European affairs at that time.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:14 PM
Germany could easily have smashed up Europe far more if they were trying.

I dont suppose any of you guys knew that Hitler had a nuclear weapon? Thats right boys and girls. Hitler had the bomb. What do you say to that? It was the wonder weapon Hitler had been pinning his hopes upon to save the war at the last minute. HE HAD IT! Smaller than the Hiroshima weapon Ill grant but it was there all right. This is new info by a Berlin Historian.

What do you think his table talk of saving the war at five minutes AFTER midnight referred to?

There are independently verifyable sources detailing a huge explosion killing thousands in southern Germany just a few weeks prior to Germanys surrender.

Have any of you read the biography of Skorzeny? The commando who rescued Mussolini? In it he claims Hitler told him of the nuclear weapon and was highly enthusaistic about it. A few days later however, Hitler told Skorzeny he had no wish to turn Europe into a nuclear wasteland. He knew the allies copied German gas after all.

Not the total monster you thought eh?
Just as I suspected you were all along, a facist.

TTFG

[Morag]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:14 PM
Germany could easily have smashed up Europe far more if they were trying.

I dont suppose any of you guys knew that Hitler had a nuclear weapon? Thats right boys and girls. Hitler had the bomb. What do you say to that? It was the wonder weapon Hitler had been pinning his hopes upon to save the war at the last minute. HE HAD IT! Smaller than the Hiroshima weapon Ill grant but it was there all right. This is new info by a Berlin Historian.

What do you think his table talk of saving the war at five minutes AFTER midnight referred to?

There are independently verifyable sources detailing a huge explosion killing thousands in southern Germany just a few weeks prior to Germanys surrender.

Have any of you read the biography of Skorzeny? The commando who rescued Mussolini? In it he claims Hitler told him of the nuclear weapon and was highly enthusaistic about it. A few days later however, Hitler told Skorzeny he had no wish to turn Europe into a nuclear wasteland. He knew the allies copied German gas after all.

Not the total monster you thought eh?
Um, no. He's still a complete monster, you ass.

Further, if you have these "new" sources, show them. It's one thing to present ideas that are generally accepted in some schools (like that Britain and France were trying to force Germany eastward, for example) if you can provide at least some historical evidence, but to suggest that an explosion that killed thousands was a nuclear bomb when there is no other evidence, like radiation levels or sickness or confirming reports, is crap. It doesn't work. How do we know, from your post, that the explosion wasn't just a regular bomb? Enough of those floating around. Or a gas leak in a factory?

On the other hand, since Hitler had a special concentration camp for scientists, if they had developed the bomb, I wouldn't be too surprised if none of the scientists survived. I think we'd still know about it, though.

[theraven]

The Germans failed to learn the lesson that the Romans had taught the western world, local expansion only works if you expand the franchise along with the borders. Attempting "settler colonization" along one's own borders was always a suicidal plan.


I have to quibble here. Rome DID do settler colonies. It intergreated the locals as well as they romanized, but a major factor was always the settlement of romans (usually former soliers) in the country. France was romanized by waves of veterans given land in france for their services in the Civil Wars. later on they would be given land in france, germany or wherever they served (since they usually married there they had no desire to return).

[Janus]

Not the total monster you thought eh?
Not really. It just shows that he had a little bit of sense there in not using cetain chemical weapons because he assumed wrongly that the Allies would retaliate with their own and destroy his army.

As for the nuclear weapon thing, I have never heard of it and I believe it is commonly accepted that the Nazis never got around to it.

[Comrade-Z]

A few years ago I did a powerpoint presentation on the Eastern front of WWII. (And I happen to think that the Eastern War is gravely under-appreciated in terms of importance. For instance, from wikipedia:


The Eastern Front was by far the largest and bloodiest theatre of World War II, and generally accepted as the most costly conflict in human history at anywhere from 25-30 million dead as a result. It involved more land combat than all other World War II theatres combined.

I remember reading somewhere that a full 7/8ths of all of the land war in WWII occured on the Eastern front!)

I also recently did a paper for school that investigated how a lack of oil supplies harmed Germany's prospects for victory in WWII.

Edit: On second thought, I will attach these files later after I get back to my own computer.

As for WWI, I suppose if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved Germany would have had a shot. But by 1917 the U.S. was so heavily invested in the allies winning and was shipping so many supplies to that side that the U.S. ruling class were determined to make sure the allies won come hell or high water. By 1917 the U.S. government would have used almost any excuse to go to war against Germany. If Germany had been able to conclude the war before 1917 or so, then yeah, maybe they could have won it. Of course, any talk of "winning" is kind of weird in the first place since neither populace of either respective society would have gotten much out of victory. Only the ruling class would get to preserve and possibly enlarge its power. The populaces would have only been able to claim a part of this cut through vigorous direct action against their own governments after the war, but even so, this direct action would be weakened because of the fragmented nature of the populaces of Europe into bully and bullied nations, preventing international unity against capital.

[LSD]

I have to quibble here. Rome DID do settler colonies. It intergreated the locals as well as they romanized, but a major factor was always the settlement of romans (usually former soliers) in the country.

There's a difference between integration and settling. Roman soldiers never outnumbered locals in any area they moved to, and their rellocation had a lot more to do with internal Roman politics than it did with imperialism.

Again, the key to Roman expansion was that it was ultimately non-nationalistic. The Third Reich, by contrast was about nothing but nationalism. Accordingly there was simply no way that her various military occupations could ever transition into anything else.

Idelogically Nazi imperialism was doomed from the begining. The "1000 year reich" never could have lasted a generation.

[Janus]

He knew the allies copied German gas after all.
Actually, the Allies hadn't developed chemicals such as VX, etc. yet but the Nazis wrongly assumed that they did.


LSD, was spanishinquisition banned for that comment alone?

[LSD]

LSD, was spanishinquisition banned for that comment alone?

Yes.

[Janus]

I see an extremely stupid and misinformed post but nothing suggesting sympathies with Nazism. I don't particularly care, I'm just curious.

[power... UNLIMITED POWER!]

I think Germany could have one WW1 easily if they didnt have ludendorff.

WW2 however was even easier if only they had liberated the Russians from teh communist shit instead of killing them.

[Janus]

I think Germany could have one WW1 easily if they didnt have ludendorff.
It wasn't due to one man but the fact that Germany was outnumbered in men and material throughout the war and would've lost soon anyways as the US was getting involved.


WW2 however was even easier if only they had liberated the Russians from teh communist shit instead of killing them.
And who is to say that the Russian would've let them "liberate" them. Throughout the war, patriotism was the main driving force behind the resistance.

[power... UNLIMITED POWER!]

It wasn\'t due to one man but the fact that Germany was outnumbered in men and material throughout the war and would\'ve lost soon anyways as the US was getting involved.
But the Gernamsn crushed Russia with help from foreign traitor Lenin right? Sounds like things just became a one front war. The reason they collapsed was internal ferment, lack of food, too many communists plus the collapse of Austra Hungary, but lets face it Germany was fighting their was as well. They could easily have finished even US forces in a war of attrition with possession of the Ukraine.

Anyway, Ludendrofs crazy offensives had no point and broke the German spirit.


And who is to say that the Russian would\'ve let them liberate them. Throughout the war, patriotism was the main driving force behind the resistance.
Well in Ukraine they were throwing flowers at the Germnas so what does that say? Now thats half of the terrioty the germs ended up conquering. And the patriotism came from oppression, not benevolence from Germans.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Actually the only reason Germany almost one was because Hitler and those various dicks ate up all the resources for the war, unlike free countries with free economies, it all went to war.

Long and difficult supply and transport lines were one of the major problems. German troops had to be transported by train, first to the west, away from the front, and then to the east. And all of the supplies had to go by this same train line.



Well in Ukraine they were throwing flowers at the Germnas so what does that say?

Isn't that a bit strange, considering the revolutionary situation that existed in that period in Ukraine?

[RebelDog]

QUOTE
Well in Ukraine they were throwing flowers at the Germnas so what does that say?


Isn't that a bit strange, considering the revolutionary situation that existed in that period in Ukraine?

This is a well documented event. When the Ukraine was invaded by Germany many ukrainians viewed this as a liberation from Stalin. However, most quickly realised that the Germans were not there to liberate them but to conquer and oppress them and steal their agriculture for their forces. The flowers turned to grenades and the Germans faced big resistance problems from both nationalist and soviet partisans fighting behind the lines. The German forces diverted to counter resistance in the Ukraine were substantial.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 14 2006, 10:49 AM

QUOTE
Well in Ukraine they were throwing flowers at the Germnas so what does that say?


Isn't that a bit strange, considering the revolutionary situation that existed in that period in Ukraine?

This is a well documented event. When the Ukraine was invaded by Germany many ukrainians viewed this as a liberation from Stalin. However, most quickly realised that the Germans were not there to liberate them but to conquer and oppress them and steal their agriculture for their forces. The flowers turned to grenades and the Germans faced big resistance problems from both nationalist and soviet partisans fighting behind the lines. The German forces diverted to counter resistance in the Ukraine were substantial.
Agreed.

Pretty much all historians agree that the Nazi's completlely mishandled the situation in the Ukraine.

There was a sizeable support for Germany there, not so much about the nazi politics but the fact that they were seen as liberators from Stalin.

Then Himmler let's his SS and Gestapo thugs loose (as well as some fascist Ukrainians) and this ends up turning the Ukrainians against the Germans.

Some of the biggest partisan groups on the eastern front were based in the Ukraine.

[apathy maybe]

During WWI, I think that it was possible for Germany (and perhaps the big two allies, though I think that Turkey (the Empire) was fucked whatever, just a matter of time) to have got a much better deal then what they did.
If they had of concluded earlier.

And if the Blitzkrieg (actually I can't remember what it was called, but not that) had of worked into France (i.e. captured Paris) (which it didn't) the war might have been over by Christmas like everyone thought.


And WWII, Germany could have made peace with Britain, and simply attacked the USSR (they had too, the USSR was going to attack them otherwise). Ultimately it was as LSD said, the ideology was the undoing of the war effort.

Hell they would have keeped Poland (the part that the USSR didn't keep) and Austria and the other places (simply occupying France) and the USA wouldn't have cared.



Basically in both wars Germany and her allies tried to do too much. If the war was concluded earlier in each case, Germany would have got a much better deal. But win? Not like how the allies won.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 05:16 AM

LSD, was spanishinquisition banned for that comment alone?

Yes.
You mean the "He knew the allies copied German gas after all" comment? :blink:

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 14 2006, 01:17 PM
And if the Blitzkrieg (actually I can't remember what it was called, but not that) had of worked into France (i.e. captured Paris) (which it didn't) the war might have been over by Christmas like everyone thought.

I think your refering to the 'Schlieffen Plan' which the Germans used in the first month of the war and nearly got to Paris, it was stopped by the Brits and French at the first Battle of the Marne, Sept 1914.

;)

[RebelDog]

And WWII, Germany could have made peace with Britain, and simply attacked the USSR (they had too, the USSR was going to attack them otherwise). Ultimately it was as LSD said, the ideology was the undoing of the war effort.

I have read many, many books on WW2 and I have never heard one historian claim that the USSR was going to attack Germany. Surely one need only look at the first months of the war in the east to see how ill prepared the red army was for defence, let alone attack. The USSR had no plans to attack Germany, that was a speculation of Hitler's in order to reinforce the need to launch an attack with his own generals.
If you take Britain out of the equation, Germany would still have lost the war. It would have made little difference in terms of Germany's defeat. A staggering statistic of WW2 is that for every German soldier killed by the allies the USSR killed 10. Even if we take away the entire allied contribution to WW2 it is clear to see that the USSR alone would have prevailed over nazi Germany. From the launching of the campaign by Germany (operation Barbarossa) against the USSR in June 1941, there was always at least 2 thirds of the German armed forces engaged against the USSR. The eastern front was where WW2 was won and lost. I do not wish to take anything away from any single soldier who fought in WW2, they all contributed to the end of nazi Germany.


Hell they would have keeped Poland (the part that the USSR didn't keep) and Austria and the other places (simply occupying France) and the USA wouldn't have cared.

Hitler launched the invasion of Poland hoping the western powers would not rise to protect Poland. He took a major gamble attacking Poland because he knew if France chose to attack the west wall he would have serious problems defending the German border with the bulk of the German army in Poland. He hoped to avoid war with Britain and France, at least at that time. Hitler always wanted war in the east. He wanted to build a German empire in the east. The building up of German armed forces in the 30's was totally geared to fighting a war in the east. He was always going to attack the USSR. The ongoing war with unbeaten Britain had literally no effect on the desision to conquer the USSR. He had said two decades before in Mein Kampf that he would attack in the east. That was his priority. In terms of the US entry in to the European war we have to remember that Hitler declared war on the US.

[MKS]

The entire world took the stance of appeasement when dealing with Fascists such as Hitler, some French. American and British leaders even supported the dictator’s rise to power. Hitler however squandered any real chance of victory by invading the Soviet Union and opening the war on two fronts. Britain was beat into submission, the U.S. had no real means to penetrate the defenses of continental Europe, and the rest of the allies were already well subdued by the German Armies. When Hitler (like Napoleon) invaded Russia he opened another front and greatly underestimated the tenacity of the Russian forces, and the weather. Because of this overextension an invasion of the Continent seemed possible, and as soon as the Allies caught a foothold on European soil the German Reich began its death rattle. It was caught in a vice and there was no way to escape.

Thankfully Fascism, for the time, was defeated, and the Anglo-American Empires, as well as the Soviet Empire, was left to divide the spoils of war. Republican tyranny defeated Fascist tyranny, and aided Stalinist tyranny. The entire war was an exercise for control, just like WWI, Empires fought for control of the world.

[theraven]

There's a difference between integration and settling. Roman soldiers never outnumbered locals in any area they moved to, and their rellocation had a lot more to do with internal Roman politics than it did with imperialism.

No it was a dual effect. the emperors/dictaotrs viewed it as a way to stop the constant rebellions in the colonies.


Again, the key to Roman expansion was that it was ultimately non-nationalistic. The Third Reich, by contrast was about nothing but nationalism. Accordingly there was simply no way that her various military occupations could ever transition into anything else.

Idelogically Nazi imperialism was doomed from the begining. The "1000 year reich" never could have lasted a generation.

why not? another comparsion could easialy be the american west. we settled land that nomadic indians lived on, and we somehow survivaed and became the definate majority there.

[LSD]

No it was a dual effect. the emperors/dictaotrs viewed it as a way to stop the constant rebellions in the colonies.

That's simply untrue.

Seeing as most anti-roman rebellions were actually started by Romans, and a good number were by former or current soldiers, moving Romans into an area really didn't contribute to imperial security.

The reason that soldiers were granted lands outside of Italy was so that they stayed outside of Italy, and didn't pose a threat to local Roman security.

Again, it was about domestic policy, not nationalism.


why not? another comparsion could easialy be the american west. we settled land that nomadic indians lived on, and we somehow survivaed and became the definate majority there.

The key word there is "nomadic". There's a difference between slowly expanding against a disparate and non-localized group like America circa 1600-1900 and attempting to replace a massive, settled, and integrated population along one's imperial boundries.

Besides, most of the Native Americans were killed off through European diseases, the number of survivors, even as early as the 1700s was remarkably low. And even then, the process of relocating them was slow, gradual, and wrought with difficulty.

If the US weren't the sole power on the continent, it might even have been a serious political problem. If, like in the case of the Third Reich, the Native American groups had been allied, equally well-armed, and allied with reasonably powerful extranational forces ....it would indeed have been potentialy devastating.

[Janus]

But the Gernamsn crushed Russia with help from foreign traitor Lenin right?
The Germans didn't "crush" the Russians. Russia withdrew from the war soon after Lenin took over.

Sounds like things just became a one front war. The reason they collapsed was internal ferment, lack of food, too many communists plus the collapse of Austra Hungary, but lets face it Germany was fighting their was as well.
Well, by the ned of the war they simply didn't have the resources and manpower left. Any food would immediately go to the front.

They could easily have finished even US forces in a war of attrition with possession of the Ukraine.
They did have the Ukraine.

Anyway, Ludendrofs crazy offensives had no point and broke the German spirit.
There's nothing crazy about a last-ditch effort to win the war when the odds are clearly against you.


Well in Ukraine they were throwing flowers at the Germnas so what does that say? Now thats half of the terrioty the germs ended up conquering. And the patriotism came from oppression, not benevolence from Germans.
Originally, yes. However, the conquered peoples quickly realized that German fascism was much worse than any repression under the USSR.

[Vendetta]

Quoting the first post:


Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:30 AM
A country of then about 69,300,000 took on the entire world and very nearly won.

And, if you look at the ultimate winners (given the Marshall plan among others) you could easily state that ultimately, the United States and the former (hint hint) Soviet Union really lost that war.

Japan nearly pawned us during the 1980's.

And Germany is currently the prima facia in the European Union . . . the third Triumvirate if there ever was one.

In WWI, I do not not enough about to say that Germany could have/not won, but in WWII, they most certainly lost. The minute they invaded the Soviet Union the Germans lost. They had a 40,000,000-something army, on many fronts, versus an undeniably large force of troops whose only target is Berlin. Simple war of attrition.

[MKS]

A country of then about 69,300,000 took on the entire world and very nearly won.

In both wars Germany had allies. WWI they were allied with an an entire Empire, well 2 Empires (the Ottomans and the Austro-Hugarian Empire). WWII they were allied with Italy and Japan, as well as Vichey France and several other collaborative European governments (Austria, Seriba, Czech, Spain). Germany alone did not "take on the entire world"


In my opinion Germany should be bulldozed for their crimes against the world.

Deciding who to root for in a Stalin vs Hitler fight is impossible,they both should have been destroyed, as soon as Britain and America defeated Hitler and Hirohito, they should have drove their tanks into Russia.

[Comrade-Z]

My two files (the powerpoint "Germany Vs. Russia" and my paper on Germany and its oil difficulties in WWII) are both in this zip file.

Edit: It looks like I won't be able to attach either the powerpoint or the powerpoint in a zip file, so here's just the paper:

[Comrade Alexus]

In WWI, I do not not enough about to say that Germany could have/not won, but in WWII, they most certainly lost. The minute they invaded the Soviet Union the Germans lost. They had a 40,000,000-something army, on many fronts, versus an undeniably large force of troops whose only target is Berlin. Simple war of attrition.


They had a 40,000,000-something army

Half the German population was in the Wehrmacht? I think you might be slightly off there.

[Vendetta]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 16 2006, 11:42 AM

In WWI, I do not not enough about to say that Germany could have/not won, but in WWII, they most certainly lost. The minute they invaded the Soviet Union the Germans lost. They had a 40,000,000-something army, on many fronts, versus an undeniably large force of troops whose only target is Berlin. Simple war of attrition.


They had a 40,000,000-something army

Half the German population was in the Wehrmacht? I think you might be slightly off there.
Well...maybe.

It was really just a random figure that I pulled out of my head.

But if it ends up to be an even smaller number, then that just further proves my point.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by Carolina [email protected] 16 2006, 11:49 AM
Well...maybe.

It was really just a random figure that I pulled out of my head.

But if it ends up to be an even smaller number, then that just further proves my point.
Actually that bring up an interesting point.

In the last year of the war the Germans had about 3.5 to 4 million men in uniform.

Do you know how many of these were on the front lines?

About 800,000.

So 4/5ths of the military weren't even firing weapons.

The whole German war machine was incredibly 'top' heavy.

"Too many chiefs and not enough indians"

[Comrade-Z]

In the last year of the war the Germans had about 3.5 to 4 million men in uniform.

Do you know how many of these were on the front lines?

About 800,000.

Do you think it's possible that a lot of the military had to stay in the domestic arena and occupied zones in order to guard against civil unrest?

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 16 2006, 03:56 PM
Do you think it's possible that a lot of the military had to stay in the domestic arena and occupied zones in order to guard against civil unrest?
Well by the end of 1944 they didn't have a lot of occupied zones left of course.

The sources I've read basically make the point that most of the manpower was being wasted on admin work, security work (which I suppose would include anti-partisan activity) but mainly meant camp duties, VIP security etc, and often being garrisoned in towns many miles from the front for no apparent reason.

It seems to suggest that the majority of commanders (realising the war was lost) were reluctant to throw themselves (or their troops) into battle.

So basically they had 3 to 4 million men in the armed forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, SS), who were capable of fighting i.e. trained and armed, but only 800,000 were on front line duty.

I think this is one of the reasons why between D-Day and The German Ardennes offensive, the allied advance in France, and Poland, Romania, Hungary was so rapid.

[evergreen]

Hello all,

I believe that it's really hard to say what would have been the outcomes if one did this or did that. But i think that Hitler did a bad move in trying to conquer Russia. That was his downfall, he was fighting 2 fronts. Stalingrad was a major upset for the Germans, and when the Russians started pushing from the east, it was too much because the Americans and Brits were pushing from the west.

If Hitler had not had a battlefront in the east, the Americans and the allies would not have been able to even get off their boats in Normandy.


Although, maybe ultimately, the USA would have prevailed. Although the US was fighting 2 battlefronts as well, one in Europe and one in the Pacific.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 05:31 PM
Hello all,

I believe that it's really hard to say what would have been the outcomes if one did this or did that. But i think that Hitler did a bad move in trying to conquer Russia. That was his downfall, he was fighting 2 fronts. Stalingrad was a major upset for the Germans, and when the Russians started pushing from the east, it was too much because the Americans and Brits were pushing from the west.

If Hitler had not had a battlefront in the east, the Americans and the allies would not have been able to even get off their boats in Normandy.


Although, maybe ultimately, the USA would have prevailed. Although the US was fighting 2 battlefronts as well, one in Europe and one in the Pacific.
I would say this is a pretty good analysis. The only thing I would say is that the battle of Kursk was much more decisive. It was the last time the Germans launched a major offensive in the east and it gave the red army a chance to smash a huge amount of german armour. I agree that Normandy would never have taken place if the germans were not fighting in the east. Millions of US and UK soldiers would have had to have died to defeat a nazi Germany that could field its full strength.

[The Resistor]

THANK GOD for T34's !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :P