Could have the Axis won WW2?

[Red_or_Dead]

Ok, an interesting subject that I discussed with a friend the other day: what should have the Axis done to win WW2?

Basicly the one thing that we both agreed on is that Hitler should not have invaded the USSR when he did, that he should have first dealt with the UK and the resistance movements in occupied countries. This was still pretty early on in the war, when both the USSR and the US were still out of the war (at least openly), and Hitler could have either subdued the UK in one way or the other or made some sort of a peace treaty with Churchill. After that, he could use his forces that were being held up in the western Europe and north Africa and strike at the USSR. Taking into consideration that in reallity Hitler came right up to Moscow, and almost succeded in driving the Soviets to the Ural mountains, would all that extra strenght be enough to push the Red army into Asia? Would it be enough for victory in Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow? Well, I think that it would. In theory anyway, it could go either way in reallity.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Any holes in that theory? Or could it work?

In any case, its good that we get to talk about what should have the Axis done to win, not vice versa...

[Psy]

Remember that revolutionary armies eventually sprang up in Italy and Greece, many think if not for the carpet bombing of cities by the allies revolutionary armies would have sprang up in Germany. Meaning if Hitler gave the masses enough breathing room he probably have had to deal with a civil-war within the Nazi empire.

Germany's navy was no match against Britain's and Germany's air force failed in gaining air superiority over Britain so they could send paratroopers into Britain.

As for the USSR, even if Hitler captured Stalin it probably wouldn't have ended fighting. Leningrad lost contact with Moscow and actually fought better. The army wouldn't have surrenders since it was clear Hitler only saw Russians as cheap expendable labor.

[Lost In Translation]

I always hear people saying that the Luftwaffe should`ve kept attacking the RAF bases in the Battle of Britain instead of moving on to the Blitz.

[spartan]

It would have helped if Japan had invaded the USSR from the far east at the same time as Germany launched Operation Barbarossa and also if Japan hadn't of attacked the US in Pearl Harbour at the time that it did (trouble is it had to as it was running out of resources and needed to invade British and American possesions in the far east to steal there resources).

Germany would also have been helped if they hadn't been tied down in the Balkans for a few crucial months in 1941 then they would have had more time in better weather to defeat the Soviets early on in Operation Barbarossa.

Also had the Finns attacked in the area of Leningrad then the Germans probably would have taken the city.

Hell if the Germans didn't regard Slavs as sub-human they could have recruited hundreds of thousands of Soviet POW's to fight against Stalin and the communists (which many would have readily done).

Against the British if the pro-Axis revolts in Egypt, Iran and Iraq had more success then they did they could have tied down more British troops in the middle east thus helping Rommel and the Italians in north Africa.

Also the Luftwaffe should never have switched from destroying RAF airfields in Britain to bombing civilian targets instead as this allowed the RAF to regroup and take the fight to the German bombers who had to switch to night time bombing whilst still suffering heavy casualties at the hands of RAF Spitfires.

Things would have been alot better for the German bombers and submarines had their radar and enigma machines respectively not been cracked by the British early on in the war.

Getting Franco and Spain on side would have been a big bonus as well as Gibraltar would have been under threat and if captured it would prevent the British from accessing the Mediterranean from the Atlantic whilst trapping any Royal Navy forces still in the Mediterranean and leaving them at the mercy of the Italians (Malta would have eventually fallen probably via German paratroopers).

[Red_or_Dead]

Remember that revolutionary armies eventually sprang up in Italy and Greece, many think if not for the carpet bombing of cities by the allies revolutionary armies would have sprang up in Germany. Meaning if Hitler gave the masses enough breathing room he probably have had to deal with a civil-war within the Nazi empire.


Revolutionary armies that sprang up in the Balkans were primarily caused by the Axis occupation of those countries. I dont know at exactly what time did Italian partisans appear, but they didnt do much good until after Italy capitulated in 1943, and even then they werent a decisive factor.

A civil war within the Third Reich seems an unlikely possibility, specialy because most of the people that would have fought in such a war were already mobilised into the German army. That and if Hitler could keep the situation on the battlefields to German advantage, uprising in the Germany itself seems even more unlikely.



Germany's navy was no match against Britain's and Germany's air force failed in gaining air superiority over Britain so they could send paratroopers into Britain.

Well, German navy was extremly effective in the early years of the war, especialy the U-boats. Air superiority would have been easier if this:

I always hear people saying that the Luftwaffe should`ve kept attacking the RAF bases in the Battle of Britain instead of moving on to the Blitz.happened.


As for the USSR, even if Hitler captured Stalin it probably wouldn't have ended fighting. Leningrad lost contact with Moscow and actually fought better. The army wouldn't have surrenders since it was clear Hitler only saw Russians as cheap expendable labor.

Yes, but the point is, what would happen if Hitler could count on his entire army, including those troops that were in reallity held up elsewhere.


Germany would also have been helped if they hadn't been tied down in the Balkans for a few crucial months in 1941 then they would have had more time in better weather to defeat the Soviets early on in Operation Barbarossa.


Thats for sure. There would be no German tanks breaking dow in below freezing temperatures.


Hell if the Germans didn't regard Slavs as sub-human they could have recruited hundreds of thousands of Soviet POW's to fight against Stalin and the communists (which many would have readily done).


Well, Im not sure how they regarded the Soviets, but Yugoslavs were massively mobilised into the German army. Especialy Croats who were even in the SS.


Getting Franco and Spain on side would have been a big bonus as well as Gibraltar would have been under threat and if captured it would prevent the British from accessing the Mediterranean from the Atlantic whilst trapping any Royal Navy forces still in the Mediterranean and leaving them at the mercy of the Italians (Malta would have eventually fallen probably via German paratroopers).

I always wondered why Franco didnt join the war. If Germany had Spain on its side, then things in the medditeranean would have been a lot different. Like you said, allies could kiss the Gibraltar and Malta goodbye. And that would have also given the axis an edge in N. Africa.



And the BIG question that occured to me now: Switzerland. I mean, after the conquest of France, Switzerland was surrounded on all sides. It had a large proportion of German and Italian populations. Why didnt the Axis invade Switzerland?

[ships-cat]

There are several ways it could have happened. Here's just one;

Firstly - as another poster has mentioned - the Luftwaffe should have concentrated on disabling fighter command, and attacking the Sector Control houses. Then it should have attacked the Fleet at Scapa Flow and Portsmouth (in association with the Kriegsmarine submarine forces), forcing the RN out towards Ireland, and away from their repair/replenishment faclities. This would have made convoy support much harder, but would also have the vital task of moving the RN further away from the English Channel. Then they should have invaded.

The invasion wouldn't need to conquer the UK, but merely force the British government to terms: namely, no US military forces to be built up in the UK. The germans could have then departed, leaving just a few hundred official 'observers' to ensure that the terms where adhered to. This would have effectively eliminated the USA (and the UK, of course) from the war.

Finaly, instead of attacking Russia, Hitler could have waited another year, and instead launched a maritime atack of Syria, leading to land invasions of Iraq and Iran. This would put the middle east oil reserves under his belt, as well as threatening a second front against the Soviet Union via Georgia, should that ever be desired.

Hitler would now have all of his fuel requirements met, boosting both his military capability, and domestic industry. Strategicly he would now be in a position to threaten North-Western India (current day Pakistan), with the prospect of German and Japanese forces actually meeting up !

In the shorter term, he could also strike West from Syria, overthrowing the British Mandate in Palestine, and hence undercutting the British forces in Africa. (a minor theatre of war, but a constant irritant for Germany). The Mediteranean would now be an exclusively Axis waterway, with the RN pushed back to Gibralter. A few squadrons of Stuka's etc based in Morocco would soon put paid even to THAT, with Franco probably keen to then take over Gibralter by land.

The Axis would now have secure, sheltered warm-water bases for their fleets in the shape of the entire mediterranean, and could sally forth into the Atlantic at will, as well as being able to transit the Suez and gain access to the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf. They would now have direct maritime trade routes to the nascent Japanese Empire.

Meow Purr.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Stalin was the soile person responsible for
winning ww2 trotgoats like to for get that but its true.

[Pogue]

Stalin was the soile person responsible for
winning ww2 trotgoats like to for get that but its true.

So the millons of soliders, partisans, resistance fighters, doctors, factory workers, various other workers and the other Allied leaders didn't help at all?
Of course they did. You talk aload of shit. What the fuck is a trotgoat?
You have no conception of history, beyond ideolising one paedophile authoritarian **** who had millions of people murdered in 'The Great Purge'. Do you forget Stalin was chummy with Hitler earlier on?
You say some really stupid things.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Id be chummy with hitler to if it was of benefit to the people
hitlersa crimes were not exposed till after ww2 so stalin had no reason to assume like you
you buy into to much western propaganda,
and you call yourself a communist
gulag is were you would be in a truthful world.

[Red_or_Dead]

Stalin was the soile person responsible for
winning ww2 trotgoats like to for get that but its true.

http://history.sandiego.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics/14309.jpg

Nuff said.

Now, back in the real world:


Hitler would now have all of his fuel requirements met, boosting both his military capability, and domestic industry. Strategicly he would now be in a position to threaten North-Western India (current day Pakistan), with the prospect of German and Japanese forces actually meeting up !


That would have been possible, but the Japs would have to outdo themselves to get that far west - they would have to not only get across China and the Himalayas, they would have to get past India, which was still a British colony in those days.


Finaly, instead of attacking Russia, Hitler could have waited another year, and instead launched a maritime atack of Syria, leading to land invasions of Iraq and Iran. This would put the middle east oil reserves under his belt, as well as threatening a second front against the Soviet Union via Georgia, should that ever be desired.


This would make a lot of sense, specialy because (if Im not much mistaken) oil supply was a big problem for the German army.

And I agree that he would be better off waiting before attacking the USSR. Basicly he should eliminate any threat from the western allies, leaving them without any footholds in the mediterannean or the middle east, then attack the USSR.

[Red_or_Dead]

Id be chummy with hitler to if it was of benefit to the people
hitlersa crimes were not exposed till after ww2 so stalin had no reason to assume like you
you buy into to much western propaganda,
and you call yourself a communist
gulag is were you would be in a truthful world.


http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s16/r3v3r3nd_album/fail1.jpg

[Pogue]

Id be chummy with hitler to if it was of benefit to the people
hitlersa crimes were not exposed till after ww2 so stalin had no reason to assume like you
you buy into to much western propaganda,
and you call yourself a communist
gulag is were you would be in a truthful world.

Western propoganda? As opposed to what, the propoganda of an authoritarian regime now dead with no civil liberties, no free press and a heavy secret police presence?
You'd side with someone who was openly fascist? That says alot about you. For the benefit of the people eh? What about all the people Hitler killed? Siding with Hitler did not benefit them.
You challenge my communism? I'm a true communist. I believe in liberty and freedom, alongside no state and class. You're just a tankie, a Stalin kiddie, you wont even be a communist in two years time, you'll have moved on to skateboarding or something.
And you say I should be in a gulag? Your beyond a joke, your just so pathetic, I don't get it, with your crazy eratic position of words and sentences in posts. A gulag is where I'll be for hating authoritarian murderous paedophiles? Thas where I'd be in a 'truthful world'? Is that your idea of a truthful world, where people who hate people like Stalin are in gulags?
You're not a communist, you're a loser, who thinks that his pathetic 'rap' is good when anyone with eyes and a brain knows its the shittest thing ever to be called 'music'. You need to get over you're love of authoritarian bastards and get a proper hobby.

[Red_or_Dead]

Western propoganda? As opposed to what, the propoganda of an authoritarian regime now dead with no civil liberties, no free press and a heavy secret police presence?
You'd side with someone who was openly fascist? That says alot about you. For the benefit of the people eh? What about all the people Hitler killed? Siding with Hitler did not benefit them.
You challenge my communism? I'm a true communist. I believe in liberty and freedom, alongside no state and class. You're just a tankie, a Stalin kiddie, you wont even be a communist in two years time, you'll have moved on to skateboarding or something.
And you say I should be in a gulag? Your beyond a joke, your just so pathetic, I don't get it, with your crazy eratic position of words and sentences in posts. A gulag is where I'll be for hating authoritarian murderous paedophiles? Thas where I'd be in a 'truthful world'? Is that your idea of a truthful world, where people who hate people like Stalin are in gulags?
You're not a communist, you're a loser, who thinks that his pathetic 'rap' is good when anyone with eyes and a brain knows its the shittest thing ever to be called 'music'. You need to get over you're love of authoritarian bastards and get a proper hobby.


Dude, calm down. As far as I know hes in no power to throw any of us into a gulag.

Infact... From the way he appears... From the way he flames up things... You smell it? I think I smell... A TROLL

[Pogue]

He's definatly a troll, yes, and I don't understand why he keeps posting like he's writing a poem. Like, a sentence will have 3 words on it before cutting suddenly to another 3 word sentence beneath it. And he seems to think that this forum is a Trotskyist conspiracy to attack Stalinists. It's funny but also irritating.

[Colonello Buendia]

The Axis could've and on paper should've (thank fuck they didn't) In the mediterranean the British were weak they had fewer capital ships than the Italians and the Italians posed a serious threat to Malta. the Germans were poised to gain Air Superiority over the UK which would've led to blitzkrieg and the brits wouldn't have held for long. In the east the US was losing massively until Midway, and it was only by fluke that they one that one. the allies were incredibly lucky. infact I'd say that Luck don't cover it. I could go on for ages about the whole subject and one day I'll write a book but right now suffice to say that had things not been tempered by luck and ineptness then we'd all be under nazi control

[comrade stalin guevara]

First im dissed for posting
to big of paragraphs
now im dissed for posting like a poem
fuck this fantasy/left bullshit.

[Pogue]

If you don't like it here, why don't you leave? Go to a poetry forum or something and see how far you're 'raps' get you.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Wheres your raps,
oh you have none!

[Pogue]

Yes, because I'm not a rapper.

[Pogue]

And neither are you, too, what you write is shit.

[comrade stalin guevara]

well stop judgeing rappers cos you are not one,
rawthentic and nhia have not dissed and they are the best
whats your grounds to diss?

[Pogue]

The fact that I've listened to alot of rap and I know what you write does not flow, its not imaginative, it's not itneresting to read. It couldn't be put too any beat worth listening too and its all the same.

[comrade stalin guevara]

And neither are you, too, what you write is shit.

Yea well again till you show me your better fuck up,
stop arguieing cos you dont like me.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Yea thats why iv recorded 2 albums?
no money involved straight underground shit
and yea i have fans about 2000 of them
not much but pretty good for a suckky rapper.

[Pogue]

I don't have to prove I'm better to say you're shit. I didn't claim I'm better. I'm just telling you that your 'rap', by anyones standards, is amazingly bad.
It's called criticism, I'm the person reading that shit, and I think its a disgrace to rap, so I'm telling you, as a critic, what you write is absolute bollocks. It's not even rap.

[Pogue]

Link me to a website/review of these albums you claim to have made.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Underground,
iv
got a song called me and my knife,
it could easily be about you,
see unlike you i am not an net nerd im a real life person
i havbe real friend not just clowns who have read the commie manifesto and prtened to be leftist.

I live and work in the ghetto of my city what abut you middle class idiot.

[Pogue]

Oh no. I'm being threatened by a Nazi on an internet board. I'm scared.
For a 'real life person' (whatever that means) you sure spend alot of time trolling an internet forum like this.
You live in 'the ghetto'? Bullshit. You're so poor you can spend all day trolling a forum on your computer?
If you work, how comes you're always on here? Another lie. No doubt your rich family are paying for you to stay at home while other, honest people work.
And you can't show me any evidence of your fans or 'rap album'. Because you have not recorded any songs. Because you can't rap and you have no friends.
You're just a spoilt fat rich 13 year old Nazi who posts on a forum for communists because no one likes you because you're a boring, lying ****.
Take your pathetic disgrace of a self to the job centre.

[Trystan]

Id be chummy with hitler to if it was of benefit to the people
hitlersa crimes were not exposed till after ww2 so stalin had no reason to assume like you
you buy into to much western propaganda,
and you call yourself a communist
gulag is were you would be in a truthful world.

Two assholes, same shit:

http://www.pinkowatch.com/articles/images/hitlerStalin.gif


As George Orwell, the great man in my avatar, said (paraphrase): when you saw how the Nazis treated the Jews before the war, it's no surprise how they treated them during the war. Stalin knew what was going on inside Germany, of course he did. The whole world knew and Stalin undoubtedly had more than a few spies in Germany.

You Stalinists are fooling no-one. You're just an embarrassment, if anything.

[comrade stalin guevara]

And you by into capitolist propaganda,
making you a......


CAPITOLIST

[Trystan]

And you by into capitolist propaganda,
making you a......


CAPITOLIST

I buy into truth. You should check it out sometime. :)

[Pogue]

Thats not how you spell 'capitalist'.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Oh no. I'm being threatened by a Nazi on an internet board. I'm scared.
For a 'real life person' (whatever that means) you sure spend alot of time trolling an internet forum like this.
You live in 'the ghetto'? Bullshit. You're so poor you can spend all day trolling a forum on your computer?
If you work, how comes you're always on here? Another lie. No doubt your rich family are paying for you to stay at home while other, honest people work.
And you can't show me any evidence of your fans or 'rap album'. Because you have not recorded any songs. Because you can't rap and you have no friends.
You're just a spoilt fat rich 13 year old Nazi who posts on a forum for communists because no one likes you because you're a boring, lying ****.
Take your pathetic disgrace of a self to the job centre.

Judgemental prick,
my people exploted by imperialisim since 1840
me a fat 13 year old right
its morning where i am so i dont have to work!
whats your job....

Oh like the rap you have none.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Stalin,
being taught catholic at an early age taught him
if you keep the ruling class around theyl
fuck us all,
gorbachev proved that to be true.

[Pogue]

CSG, face it, you're a spolit lying loser. And you're openly a Nazi supporter. You're scum. Face it, A scumbag Nazi.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Belive what you want,
the revolution will pass you by.

[Psy]

Revolutionary armies that sprang up in the Balkans were primarily caused by the Axis occupation of those countries. I dont know at exactly what time did Italian partisans appear, but they didnt do much good until after Italy capitulated in 1943, and even then they werent a decisive factor.

A civil war within the Third Reich seems an unlikely possibility, specialy because most of the people that would have fought in such a war were already mobilised into the German army. That and if Hitler could keep the situation on the battlefields to German advantage, uprising in the Germany itself seems even more unlikely.

Germany still had industrial workers.



Well, German navy was extremly effective in the early years of the war, especialy the U-boats.
happened.

U-boats were effective against convoys, the German Navy wasn't very effective against the British Navy. While the Bismarck was a impressive battleship Germany didn't have enough ship to challenge the British Navy.

Also the German's fetish to large weapons was illogical, you can't make up for numbers in size. For example they build the Panzer VIII Maus with its pathetic top speed of 13 KM/h and too heavy to cross any bridge and what does Germany do, they plan to build Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte that would weight about 1,000 tons and would use the the same guns used in Scharnhorst class cruisers, not only would only Naval Yards have the ability to build such beats but they would be so heavy that the soft soil of Russia would have sucked them up, plus their fuel consumption would have been horrible and be lucky to move at a walking speed (meaning odds are they would fall behind infantry), yet a even larger tank Landkreuzer P 1500 Monster tank was also on the drawing board (both designed in 1942 to defeat the USSR). If they were actually build I doubt they would actually have made it to very far into Russia.

Germany did build their super guns like the Schwerer Gustav which proved highly ineffective for their massive cost.

[Red_or_Dead]

Germany still had industrial workers.

True, but mobilisation still affected the population a whole damn lot. Without it, any uprising would be much easier.

Then there is, what I already stated, raising morale at home with victories abroad, that would have been a lot more numerous, had Hitler not been such a megalomaniac.


U-boats were effective against convoys, the German Navy wasn't very effective against the British Navy. While the Bismarck was a impressive battleship Germany didn't have enough ship to challenge the British Navy.


I agree on this one.


Also the German's fetish to large weapons was illogical, you can't make up for numbers in size. For example they build the Panzer VIII Maus with its pathetic top speed of 13 KM/h and too heavy to cross any bridge and what does Germany do, they plan to build Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte that would weight about 1,000 tons and would use the the same guns used in Scharnhorst class cruisers, not only would only Naval Yards have the ability to build such beats but they would be so heavy that the soft soil of Russia would have sucked them up, plus their fuel consumption would have been horrible and be lucky to move at a walking speed (meaning odds are they would fall behind infantry), yet a even larger tank Landkreuzer P 1500 Monster tank was also on the drawing board (both designed in 1942 to defeat the USSR). If they were actually build I doubt they would actually have made it to very far into Russia.

Germany did build their super guns like the Schwerer Gustav which proved highly ineffective for their massive cost.

Well, true as well, but aside from that Germans used excelent weapons, that had proven their quality on the battlefield countless times.

I think that as far as weapons are concerned, Germans were superior to pretty much anybody.

[spartan]

And the BIG question that occured to me now: Switzerland. I mean, after the conquest of France, Switzerland was surrounded on all sides. It had a large proportion of German and Italian populations. Why didnt the Axis invade Switzerland?
An invasion of Switzerland would have been costly and for very little gain.

The Swiss army wasn't an army in the traditional sense of the word but a reservist army/militia. Switzerland was literally a nation in arms even when it wasn't war as they had conscription and a gun culture (it's often said that you wont find tennis courts or football fields in every Swiss town but shooting ranges).

They issued all civilians with firearms and ammunition which they then stored and had to do mandatory training with on local shooting ranges.

The Swiss could mobilise the entire population in a few days and though armed with bolt action rifles they were deadly marksman (indeed marksmanship is something highly valued amongst the Swiss and their gun culture).

The Swiss also had a plan for if the Nazis ever did invade which would involve them only lightly defending the lowlands whilst retreating the bulk of their forces to the alps where they would then start a guerrilla war against the occupiers (and you could imagine the casualties the Nazis would have suffered in a country where nearly everyone owns a rifle and is a deadly marksman).

There is an old story from before the great war where state representatives of many countries came and saw Swiss battle manoeuvres. Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany was impressed but still challenged his Swiss hosts by saying "I could send five million of my men into your country tomorrow what can you do?" to which the Swiss host answered "Call up one million of my citizens and have them shoot 5 rounds each and then go home.":lol:

Switzerland had nothing the Nazis needed and it wasn't as if the Swiss were aiding or favouring the allies either (Switzerland shot down as many allied pilots as German ones who violated their airspace) so there really was no point for the Germans to go wasting all those men who were needed elsewhere in much more important areas.

[Red_or_Dead]

Impressive. Ive heard that the Swiss army is pretty unique, but I never thoguth they were so badass. I can see now why Hitler didnt just invade.


"I could send five million of my men into your country tommorrow what can you do?" to which the Swiss host answered "Call up one million of my citizens and have them shoot 5 rounds each and then go home.":lol:


Lol at this!

[Spartacist]

Had Hitler not alienated the west and gone to war with them, yes he might have won.

[spartan]

Impressive. Ive heard that the Swiss army is pretty unique, but I never thoguth they were so badass. I can see now why Hitler didnt just invade.

I think he wanted to do just that and plans were indeed drawn up (Operation Tannenbaum) but his generals convinced him and the Nazi leadership that even if successful it would be far to costly for very little in return.

I forgot to address the whole German Swiss connections (Nearly half of all Swiss being German).

Though there were Nazi sympathisers within Switzerland (mostly small Nazi like parties calling for all Swiss of Germans origin to put themselves and their land at the service of the fatherland) they were never any significant political force.

I should point out that the commander in chief of the Swiss army during WW2 General Henri Guisan (the highest rank in the Swiss army at the time which he was awarded with via a parliamentary vote) was suspected of having pro-German sympathies as he was a member of the Swiss Patriotic Federation an anti-semitic, anti-immigration right-wing organisation that wanted Switzerland to maintain cordial relations with Nazi Germany (though he did his job to the best of his abilites and even gave a famous speech outlying his plans for the defence of Switzerland in case of an invasion, the Reduit, to the entire Swiss officer corps on a famous Swiss historical sight known as the Rutli).

It should also be noted that the decentralised direct democratic nature of Swiss government and politics meant that any call for surrender on the part of the Swiss government in a potential conflict against Germany was to be regarded by Swiss citizens as enemy lies and propaganda and that they should keep fighting on until they defeated the Nazis!

German plans to invade Switzerland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum
Henri Guisan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Guisan
Swiss Patriotic Federation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweizerischer_Vaterl%C3%A4ndischer_Verband
"Reduit" General Guisan's defence plans for Switzerland in case of a Nazi invasion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduit
"Rutli" sight of Guisan's famous speech outlying his plans for the defence of Switzerland in case of a Nazi invasion and also famous in it's own right amongst the Swiss as being the sight of the famous oath of the Rutlischwur in 1307 which was the start of Swiss democracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCtli
Rutlischwur oath:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCtlischwur

[Psy]

Well, true as well, but aside from that Germans used excelent weapons, that had proven their quality on the battlefield countless times.

I think that as far as weapons are concerned, Germans were superior to pretty much anybody.
I don't know, the USSR did eventually produce weapons that were brilliant in their simplistic designs that still did the job, like the T-34 and Il-2 Shturmovik, while the Germans focused on complex weapons that were more difficult to mass produce.

[Dr Mindbender]

Ok, an interesting subject that I discussed with a friend the other day: what should have the Axis done to win WW2?

Basicly the one thing that we both agreed on is that Hitler should not have invaded the USSR when he did, that he should have first dealt with the UK and the resistance movements in occupied countries. This was still pretty early on in the war, when both the USSR and the US were still out of the war (at least openly), and Hitler could have either subdued the UK in one way or the other or made some sort of a peace treaty with Churchill. After that, he could use his forces that were being held up in the western Europe and north Africa and strike at the USSR. Taking into consideration that in reallity Hitler came right up to Moscow, and almost succeded in driving the Soviets to the Ural mountains, would all that extra strenght be enough to push the Red army into Asia? Would it be enough for victory in Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow? Well, I think that it would. In theory anyway, it could go either way in reallity.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Any holes in that theory? Or could it work?

In any case, its good that we get to talk about what should have the Axis done to win, not vice versa...

IMO Hitler made the mistake of taking on the USSR, the UK and the USA all at once. I believe the USA was provoked into entering the war by a u-boat that sank an american merchant ship. Very silly. Up on that point i believe the US was still mulling over which side to join since despite the invasion of eastern europe, American German relations were relatively amicable.

If Hitler had waited till he beat the British before taking on Stalin, he could have had the order of an extra 5 million troops on the Western front. Couldve made a big difference.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hypothetically, yes, although I'm skeptical about the duration of time Germans could have held onto the empire.

Had Hitler any sense, he would have taken the nudge, nudge, wink wink gestures from France and England seriously and invaded the USSR first back in '39 and '40. It would have given him the materials he needed, and quite honestly he would have won a lot of support back in West Europe and the United States. I'm not sure Japan could have done much - perhaps if they pushed hard enough they could have freed some pissed off gulag prisoners? ;) The factories of production were centralized east of Moscow, but not dramatically so.

Then, when the USSR was down and out, Germany could have knocked France in the same manner it did, and take on the UK with a full force. I don't think Italy should have concentrated so much on Africa as it did (well, I do think it should have - since they lost - but you get my point). A blockade of the British isles would suffice as a way to prevent material from His Majesty's colonies from aiding the Brits. The colonies would come afterwards as simple gestures of defeat/victory. Africa, Europe, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, and practically all of East Asia would have been theres.

Supposing Britain was taken, then Japan and Germany could have asserted their powers on the United States. I'm highly skeptical the US would have preserved beyond concessions of alliance.

But as I said, a global empire would need to have some concessions in order, not run on a slave economy. Germany could have promised Ireland more wealth (denied to them by the Brits), the Africans more independence, and so on - but that's kind of against Nazi ideology, eh?


I believe the USA was provoked into entering the war D-Day created war between Japan and the USA, and Germany then declared war on the USA.

[Psy]

Hypothetically, yes, although I'm skeptical about the duration of time Germans could have held onto the empire.

Had Hitler any sense, he would have taken the nudge, nudge, wink wink gestures from France and England seriously and invaded the USSR first back in '39 and '40. It would have given him the materials he needed, and quite honestly he would have won a lot of support back in West Europe and the United States. I'm not sure Japan could have done much - perhaps if they pushed hard enough they could have freed some pissed off gulag prisoners? ;) The factories of production were centralized east of Moscow, but not dramatically so.

Then, when the USSR was down and out, Germany could have knocked France in the same manner it did, and take on the UK with a full force. I don't think Italy should have concentrated so much on Africa as it did (well, I do think it should have - since they lost - but you get my point). A blockade of the British isles would suffice as a way to prevent material from His Majesty's colonies from aiding the Brits. The colonies would come afterwards as simple gestures of defeat/victory. Africa, Europe, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, and practically all of East Asia would have been theres.

Supposing Britain was taken, then Japan and Germany could have asserted their powers on the United States. I'm highly skeptical the US would have preserved beyond concessions of alliance.

But as I said, a global empire would need to have some concessions in order, not run on a slave economy. Germany could have promised Ireland more wealth (denied to them by the Brits), the Africans more independence, and so on - but that's kind of against Nazi ideology, eh?

D-Day created war between Japan and the USA, and Germany then declared war on the USA.

What about the Kliment Voroshilov tanks? Russia had them in 1939 so you'd still have Germany running into tanks that they simply couldn't kill (without firing AA guns at them) and the Britain and USA didn't have any weapons to deal with them either. They still would have frustrated German armies.

[Red_or_Dead]

What about the Kliment Voroshilov tanks? Russia had them in 1939 so you'd still have Germany running into tanks that they simply couldn't kill (without firing AA guns at them) and the Britain and USA didn't have any weapons to deal with them either. They still would have frustrated German armies.

Well, they were superior to the German tanks, thats true, but I would say that even that wouldnt have been enough to stop the Germans if they would prepare better and have more troops than they actually did.

Just my guess, anyway.


D-Day created war between Japan and the USA, and Germany then declared war on the USA.

Lol. No. D-day was when the Western allies invaded Nazi-occupied France. What youre talking about was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, the US navy base on Hawaii, when they pretty much wiped out the US pacific fleet.


Had Hitler any sense, he would have taken the nudge, nudge, wink wink gestures from France and England seriously and invaded the USSR first back in '39 and '40.

Could he? Remeber: France and Britain declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland. Only after Germans occupied their part of Poland (the other half being occupied by the USSR), could they attack the USSR, because they did not have a land border with the USSR before the invasion of Poland. They could, hypotethicaly, invade from one of their allies, like Romania or Finland, but that... Well, we will thankfully never know how succesfull that would be.


But as I said, a global empire would need to have some concessions in order, not run on a slave economy. Germany could have promised Ireland more wealth (denied to them by the Brits), the Africans more independence, and so on - but that's kind of against Nazi ideology, eh?

That I agree on. Basicly, I think that a "global third Reich" or whatever it would be called, would run a very similar foreign policy like the two superpowers in the cold war, and similar to the way the US is still doing it.


If Hitler had waited till he beat the British before taking on Stalin, he could have had the order of an extra 5 million troops on the Western front. Couldve made a big difference.

Yes, that would make a lot of sense. I didnt realise, though, that Hitler had 5 million troops elsewhere. That would have made a lot of difference, for sure.

[Psy]

Well, they were superior to the German tanks, thats true, but I would say that even that wouldnt have been enough to stop the Germans if they would prepare better and have more troops than they actually did.

Just my guess, anyway.

But German tanks were more lightly armoured back in 1939 then they were in 1941 as Germany was looking at French and British tanks that at the time were the worse tanks in the world. Russian infantry with basic anti-tank weapons could have easily dealt with the early German tanks of 1939.

Also the T-34 was in the prototype were completed in January 1940 (the A-32 and A-20), it wouldn't have taken much for tank designers to just put forget about a turret and just put the 76.2 mm gun into what would become the T-32 hull to create a easy to produce tank destroyer that could rip through German Armour.

[spartan]

But German tanks were more lightly armoured back in 1939 then they were in 1941 as Germany was looking at French and British tanks that at the time were the worse tanks in the world. Russian infantry with basic anti-tank weapons could have easily dealt with the early German tanks of 1939.
Initially at the start of the war the Russians were behind on radio technology for their tanks (rendering their tanks almost useless as there could be no coordinated assaults and sharing of information between crews of different tanks) and were no good in the tank tactics department either when compared with the Germans (inferior tanks or not).

The Russians of course learnt from their mistakes and soon adopted German tactics to take on the Germans at their own game, which ended up working a treat for them as their superior tanks could now prove why they were superior to the German tanks.


Also the T-34 was in the prototype were completed in January 1940 (the A-32 and A-20), it wouldn't have taken much for tank designers to just put forget about a turret and just put the 76.2 mm gun into what would become the T-32 hull to create a easy to produce tank destroyer that could rip through German Armour.

I guess they could have done this but what difference does this make if the Russian retain the same shite tactics? They would merely be more Russian built tanks for the Germans, with their superior tactics and anti-tank weapons, to destroy which would be far worse for the USSR (who would be producing weapons just to get destroyed).

In a dire situation it would be best for Russia to minimise production of tanks and tank destroyers (as they take up too many resources) and concentrate on cheap, easy to mass produce man-portable anti-tank weapons like the Molotov Cocktail and anti-tank rockets for guerrilla fighters to use.

[Psy]

Initially at the start of the war the Russians were behind on radio technology for their tanks (rendering their tanks almost useless as there could be no coordinated assaults and sharing of information between crews of different tanks) and were no good in the tank tactics department either when compared with the Germans (inferior tanks or not).

True but infantry could also take on tanks with such thin armour,



The Russians of course learnt from their mistakes and soon adopted German tactics to take on the Germans at their own game, which ended up working a treat for them as their superior tanks could now prove why they were superior to the German tanks.

I guess they could have done this but what difference does this make if the Russian retain the same shite tactics? They would merely be more Russian built tanks for the Germans, with their superior tactics and anti-tank weapons, to destroy which would be far worse for the USSR (who would be producing weapons just to get destroyed).

The Germans were only able to destroy the KV-1 or the lighter T-34 in 1941 with AA guns, or carefully aimed rounds at their weak point, the Panzer IV the heaviest tank the Germans had during Barbarossa was mostly helpless against the T-34 and tank crews required to to carefully aim at weak points to disables these iron beasts. The German Tiger tank was rushed to production because how hard it was deal with the KV-1 and T-34 and the German Panther tank was the result of Germans reverse engineering captured T-34s



In a dire situation it would be best for Russia to minimise production of tanks and tank destroyers (as they take up too many resources) and concentrate on cheap, easy to mass produce man-portable anti-tank weapons like the Molotov Cocktail and anti-tank rockets for guerrilla fighters to use.
Molotov Cocktails? I doubt they would be much use in a massive war like that of the Eastern front of WWII.

[spartan]

Molotov Cocktails? I doubt they would be much use in a massive war like that of the Eastern front of WWII.
The Finns made good use of it during the winter war and they were far worse off (military wise) then the Soviets were against the Nazis (at least the Soviets had good weapons which were cheap, easy and quick to mass produce, as well as an abundance of territory for deep defence, it was just the tactics that fucked them up in the initial phases of the war).

The kind of situation i was refering to was one where the Nazis had occupied all of Russia west of the Urals and the Soviet army and industry was concentrated in Siberia and central Asia. The guerrilla groups would be in the occupied zone and wouldn't need high tech equipment like tanks (where would they get the fuel to run them and the shells that their main gun fires?) to keep the Germans constantly occupied and unable to concentrate on the Soviet army in Siberia (which could rebuild itself ready for a new attack aimed at reconquering it's occupied territory).

Of course if the Nazis didn't regard the Slavs as sub-human then there may never have been an exstensive anti-Nazi resistance in the Nazi occupied zones of the Soviet Union (indeed many Russians may have volunteered to fight for the Nazis against Stalin seeing how lots of them initially welcomed the Nazis as liberators).

[Red_or_Dead]

Molotov Cocktails? I doubt they would be much use in a massive war like that of the Eastern front of WWII.

Molotov cocktails would only be effective in urban battles, imo. Not much sense using them when half a hundred tanks is charging at you out in the open, so I agree with you on this one.


True but infantry could also take on tanks with such thin armour,

Well, properly armed and in the right conditions, on the right terrain, infantry can take on just about any tank. Infact, in urban battles (like Stalingrad or Leningrad), tanks are a lot of times inferior to infantry, because their mobility is severly compromised.


I guess they could have done this but what difference does this make if the Russian retain the same shite tactics? They would merely be more Russian built tanks for the Germans, with their superior tactics and anti-tank weapons, to destroy which would be far worse for the USSR (who would be producing weapons just to get destroyed).


I agree with this, and not only did the Russians have poor tactics in tank warfare, they had inferior tactics praciticly everywhere. Not to mention the shortage of officers, the consequence of the purges.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What about the Kliment Voroshilov tanks? Russia had them in 1939 so you'd still have Germany running into tanks that they simply couldn't kill (without firing AA guns at them) and the Britain and USA didn't have any weapons to deal with them either. They still would have frustrated German armies.

I'm highly skeptical that the Russian army could have derailed a German assault almost twice as large as it was, especially if the Americans weren't funding the war production.

[Psy]

I'm highly skeptical that the Russian army could have derailed a German assault almost twice as large as it was, especially if the Americans weren't funding the war production.

Remember Russia successfully defended against all the imperial powers of the world at once back during the Russian civil-war. Against the weaker armour of Germany of 1939 and military commander that could fill the shoes of Trotsky to mold the red army into fierce fighting force Russia could have held their lines, we kinda seen that in the military officers in Leningrad that organized their defences independently of the rest of the Red Army during WWII and even without armour support was able to defend Leningrad.

Also Russia is so vast that such a large population that with textbook delaying tactics of the time Russia could have drawn out the advance of Germany long enough for Russia to build enough tanks to counter attack.

[Red_or_Dead]

Remember Russia successfully defended against all the imperial powers of the world at once back during the Russian civil-war. Against the weaker armour of Germany of 1939 and military commander that could fill the shoes of Trotsky to mold the red army into fierce fighting force Russia could have held their lines, we kinda seen that in the military officers in Leningrad that organized their defences independently of the rest of the Red Army during WWII and even without armour support was able to defend Leningrad.


Info from Wikipedia: In the Russian Civil war 3 million soldiers of the Red Army faced 500.000 soldiers of the White movement, an unknown number of local reactionary militias, and some 100.000 soldiers of the imperialist powers and other European countries.

Clearly, the intervention of the imperialist forces in the Russian Civil war was nowhere near in size as operation Barbarossa.

As far as Leningrad goes, it may be as you say, that they organized a highly succesfull defense on their own, but I wonder how much longer could they hold out against an enemy that would be even stronger (provided that the Germans could use the troops that were in reallity held up in the west).

[Psy]

Info from Wikipedia: In the Russian Civil war 3 million soldiers of the Red Army faced 500.000 soldiers of the White movement, an unknown number of local reactionary militias, and some 100.000 soldiers of the imperialist powers and other European countries.

Clearly, the intervention of the imperialist forces in the Russian Civil war was nowhere near in size as operation Barbarossa.

Except the USSR had more able bodies then Germany.



As far as Leningrad goes, it may be as you say, that they organized a highly succesfull defense on their own, but I wonder how much longer could they hold out against an enemy that would be even stronger (provided that the Germans could use the troops that were in reallity held up in the west).

Probably not, the troops of Leningrad were just able to prevent complete encirclement and the bad weather meant Germany's Army Group North was of low priority in the Eastern Front. Yet what Leningrad showed (and later Stalingrad) was that the Red Army could put a decent defence when properly organized.

[Red_or_Dead]

Except the USSR had more able bodies then Germany.

True. But you have to take into consideration that not only Germans fought on the Eastern front. There were also troops from Finland, Romania, Italy, Bulgaria, Independant State of Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia, volounteers from fascist Spain, and troops from various occupied territories (volounteers or drafted).

But in any case, the Soviet Union did have numeric superiority, and that is basicly why they won in the end.



Probably not, the troops of Leningrad were just able to prevent complete encirclement and the bad weather meant Germany's Army Group North was of low priority in the Eastern Front. Yet what Leningrad showed (and later Stalingrad) was that the Red Army could put a decent defence when properly organized.

That I disagree with. It takes only a glance over the numbers of the dead on the Eastern front to see that the Axis were superior in organization and tactics. The Red Army (and only the Red Army - civilians excluded) had twice as many casualties as the Axis armies. The Soviet victory was pyrrich victory.

Again, I dont know about Leningrad, but Im sure that if the Axis could count on their full strenght, that the USSR would lose terribly.

Basicly, we have Hitlers idiocy to thank for the Allied victory.

[Psy]

That I disagree with. It takes only a glance over the numbers of the dead on the Eastern front to see that the Axis were superior in organization and tactics. The Red Army (and only the Red Army - civilians excluded) had twice as many casualties as the Axis armies. The Soviet victory was pyrrich victory.

As the war wore on the Russians developed better tactics, T-34 tank crews moved from attacking in very tight formations into fighting in very wide formation once radios became standard equipment that allowed them out flank German divisions, they also leaned how to use the terrain to their advantage. Not only that but whole army groups encircled whole army groups of the enemy.



Again, I dont know about Leningrad, but Im sure that if the Axis could count on their full strenght, that the USSR would lose terribly.

Basicly, we have Hitlers idiocy to thank for the Allied victory.
Remember Stalin decapitated the Russian army yet as the war worn on the Russian army regained it ability to coordinate on a large scale, also if Stalin didn't purge all the officers that fought in the civil-war the Russian army would have had officers experienced in warfare.

[spartan]

Probably not, the troops of Leningrad were just able to prevent complete encirclement and the bad weather meant Germany's Army Group North was of low priority in the Eastern Front. Yet what Leningrad showed (and later Stalingrad) was that the Red Army could put a decent defence when properly organized.

If the Finns had attacked from the north, like the Germans wanted them to, then Leningrad would have fallen.

Why the Finns never did this i don't know?

Perhaps they really were not liking the whole allied with the Nazis thing?

[Red_or_Dead]

If the Finns had attacked from the north, like the Germans wanted them to, then Leningrad would have fallen.

Why the Finns never did this i don't know?

Perhaps they really were not liking the whole allied with the Nazis thing?


I think that the Finish government at that time was pretty fascist.

The reason why Finns didnt attack Leningrad was (imo) because they were too busy in Soviet Karelia (which was populated by ethnic Finns).

Anyway, if they had invaded Leningrad, I think it very likely that they would succed. Finns gave Soviets hell in that war, even thoguh they were forced to sign a truce in 1944, after the Germans were pushed back.

There is a great novel about the Continuation war (1941-1944) between Finland and the USSR, that was written by Väinö Linna. Id recommend it to anyone.



Remember Stalin decapitated the Russian army yet as the war worn on the Russian army regained it ability to coordinate on a large scale, also if Stalin didn't purge all the officers that fought in the civil-war the Russian army would have had officers experienced in warfare.

Oh, I agree.

But one thing that we must remember here is that the nature of the Russian Civil war was very different to that of WW2. For start, in 1917 no army massively used planes, and tanks were still very primitive, so the old officers would have to adapt as well. But anyway, it would still be better not to kill them.

[Red Phalanx]

The great shame for the USSR is that they cooperated with the Nazis before and after the nonagression pact of 1939. Stalin fed the Nazi war machine and carved out territory with his Nazi allies. He used the Comintern and the CPs to cover his ass.

Shame, shame, shame.

[John Lenin]

In my view ... WWII was won at Stalingrad.

Whichever side won that battle, to me would have won the war.

[The Spirit of 1918]

I think that the Finish government at that time was pretty fascist.

Mannerheim, who will always be Murha Kustaa to me, most definitely was.
In the early Italian sense, super anti-socialist career soldier, "savior of the White-Finland" etc.


The reason why Finns didnt attack Leningrad was (imo) because they were too busy in Soviet Karelia (which was populated by ethnic Finns).About every second infarny regiment crossing the "old border" in Karelian Isthmus had somekind of mutinies, as they really did not want to go any further.
And there was also huge political uproar against it, as not too many people supported the whole insane idea of a "Greater Finland".


Anyway, if they had invaded Leningrad, I think it very likely that they would succed. Finns gave Soviets hell in that war, even thoguh they were forced to sign a truce in 1944, after the Germans were pushed back.And after that we got to kick some German ass off Lapland! :thumbup:


There is a great novel about the Continuation war (1941-1944) between Finland and the USSR, that was written by Väinö Linna. Id recommend it to anyone.And I would recommend absolutely everything written by Linna.
Especially "Under the North Star" trilogy.

[ComradeOm]

Basicly the one thing that we both agreed on is that Hitler should not have invaded the USSR when he did, that he should have first dealt with the UK and the resistance movements in occupied countries. This was still pretty early on in the war, when both the USSR and the US were still out of the war (at least openly), and Hitler could have either subdued the UK in one way or the other or made some sort of a peace treaty with ChurchillLeaving aside the possibility of Churchill accepting peace (an impossibility) you are left with the invasion of Britain (an impossibility). The reason why Hitler saw defeating the USSR as a means to force the UK to the peace table is because there was no other way to do so. The invasion of Britain was a ridiculous proposal (the Germans planned to cross the Channel in easily capsizeable river barges!) and there are plenty of websites out that that explode the myths of that operation

Edit: Not to mention the fact that the USSR was going from strength to strength. Invading Russia in '41 at least gave the Wehrmacht a chance (however minuscule) but waiting a year or two would have made any successful German offensive impossible


After that, he could use his forces that were being held up in the western Europe and north Africa and strike at the USSR. Taking into consideration that in reallity Hitler came right up to Moscow, and almost succeded in driving the Soviets to the Ural mountains, would all that extra strenght be enough to push the Red army into Asia? Would it be enough for victory in Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow? Well, I think that it would. In theory anyway, it could go either way in reallity.Stripping France of soldiers would have produced at most an extra 100k men for the invasion of Russia. Given that the total historical force was over 5 million men - and the logistical system was woefully unable to cope with even this - I think its safe to say that this would not make the slightest difference


In any case, its good that we get to talk about what should have the Axis done to win, not vice versa...Nothing. Not invading Russia was not an option when the entire Nazi economy relied on the spoils of war. Invading Russia was a terrible plan that led to failure as soon as the Soviet state refused to collapse. Once the USA threw its immense industrial base behind the Allies there was no hope for a badly mismatched Germany


Well, they were superior to the German tanks, thats true, but I would say that even that wouldnt have been enough to stop the Germans if they would prepare better and have more troops than they actually did.What makes you think that? The Germans had the blind luck of invading Russia while the Red Army was in the middle of a major structural reorganisation. Once the initial shock of the invasion had passed and the winter of '41 survived, the Red Army proved more than a match for the Wehrmacht. The most impressive armoured operations of the war were not staged by Germans but by Soviets


I believe the USA was provoked into entering the war by a u-boat that sank an american merchant ship. Very sillyThat was WWI. WWII was Pearl Harbour and Germany declared war on Washington


If Hitler had waited till he beat the British before taking on Stalin, he could have had the order of an extra 5 million troops on the Western front. Couldve made a big difference.I assume you mean Eastern Front (given that "taking on Stalin" would be difficult on the Western Front) but I have to ask where on earth you pulled the number of 5 million from. That was more than the total number of Wehrmacht soldiers in '41

[Red_or_Dead]

Murha Kustaa

????


And I would recommend absolutely everything written by Linna.
Especially "Under the North Star" trilogy.

Well, I will look for it, but chances are it hasnt been translated, so I will stick to the Unknown Soldier.



I assume you mean Eastern Front (given that "taking on Stalin" would be difficult on the Western Front) but I have to ask where on earth you pulled the number of 5 million from. That was more than the total number of Wehrmacht soldiers in '41

It would be great if anyone could provide any source of how many troops each side had at its disposal.

[piet11111]

some things that would have changed the war in favor of the axis

- focus all tank production on the panther tank (but with improved side armor) to make production far more efficient as the tiger was to expensive and not as mobile.
- no alliance with japan (japan forced America in the war)
- 1 year delay of the Russian invasion to avoid winter and to build up strength
- use of chemical agents like sarin on England and on the eastern front as there was little defense against it
- attempt alliance with Franco before going to war

all of these would have made germany more likely to win the war in my opinion

[Red_or_Dead]

some things that would have changed the war in favor of the axis

- focus all tank production on the panther tank (but with improved side armor) to make production far more efficient as the tiger was to expensive and not as mobile.
- no alliance with japan (japan forced America in the war)
- 1 year delay of the Russian invasion to avoid winter and to build up strength
- use of chemical agents like sarin on England and on the eastern front as there was little defense against it
- attempt alliance with Franco before going to war

all of these would have made germany more likely to win the war in my opinion


Agreed. Specialy the Franco part. I know I asked this before (at least I think I did), but why the hell did Franco stay neutral? Spain could have very well be the thing to turn the war in the Mediterranean into Axis favor.

[ComradeOm]

- focus all tank production on the panther tank (but with improved side armor) to make production far more efficient as the tiger was to expensive and not as mobileOne of the most obvious errors amongst armchair generals is to focus on the hardware. Germany's problem was not the quality of the tanks (and indeed they consistently favoured individually superior designs over improved standardisation) but the number that they were able (or unable) to produce. Germany did not have the resources to compete with the USSR (never mind the USA) in terms of production - the latter (USSR) manufactured over twice the number of tanks as Germany over the course of the war... no tank was good enough to overcome those odds (certainly not the Panther which was not significantly superior to later T-34 models)

Of course that's not even mentioning the dearth of spare parts or the inability of Nazi Germany to devote the industrial resources to do what you suggest. Let's not forget of course that the Panther only entered the fighting when the conflict had already been effectively lost


- no alliance with japan (japan forced America in the war)The US would almost certainly have entered the war in any case. Roosevelt was actively arming and supporting the Allies long before Pearl Harbour


- 1 year delay of the Russian invasion to avoid winter and to build up strengthYou think the Soviets were standing still or that winter is a biannual event in Russia? Waiting a year would have squandered the possible gains to be made from a surprise Barbarossa while allowing the Soviets to continue with their impressive militarisation campaign. As for winter, regardless of the year the Germans were still left with a window of 4-5 months to compete operations before the rain began in earnest


- use of chemical agents like sarin on England and on the eastern front as there was little defense against itGermany did possess chemical weapons and they did employ them on the Eastern Front. They did not see mass use due to both their ineffectiveness and the fear of Allied retaliation


- attempt alliance with Franco before going to warWhich would accomplish what, exactly? Franco's Spain was economically in ruins and militarily weaker than even Italy. The last thing Germany needed was another ally to prop up. Incidentally an alliance was attempted but Franco's price (a large chunk of French Africa) was judged, correctly, by the Germans to a) be too steep a price for what Spain could contribute, and b) pose a serious risk of completely alienating Vichy France

[Red Equation]

Hitler was taking too much cocaine (for medical purposes), sooner or later, he would have slipped and made a wrong move.

[piet11111]

One of the most obvious errors amongst armchair generals is to focus on the hardware. Germany's problem was not the quality of the tanks (and indeed they consistently favoured individually superior designs over improved standardisation) but the number that they were able (or unable) to produce. Germany did not have the resources to compete with the USSR (never mind the USA) in terms of production - the latter (USSR) manufactured over twice the number of tanks as Germany over the course of the war... no tank was good enough to overcome those odds (certainly not the Panther which was not significantly superior to later T-34 models)

exactly my point by not focusing on 1 mass production tank they wasted a lot of resources and production capability.
their best bet in my opinion was mass production of the panther tank so that they had the best balance of numbers and quality so that they could invade deeper into the USSR and prevent the soviets from benefiting from their immense resources.



Of course that's not even mentioning the dearth of spare parts or the inability of Nazi Germany to devote the industrial resources to do what you suggest. Let's not forget of course that the Panther only entered the fighting when the conflict had already been effectively lost

well the spare parts is partially solved by simply resorting to 1 tank design and the turning point of the war is up to debate that i am not interested in.


The US would almost certainly have entered the war in any case. Roosevelt was actively arming and supporting the Allies long before Pearl Harbour
eventually yes they would have entered but what matters is how the war would have looked like had their entry been delayed by many months or even a year or 2.


You think the Soviets were standing still or that winter is a biannual event in Russia? Waiting a year would have squandered the possible gains to be made from a surprise Barbarossa while allowing the Soviets to continue with their impressive militarisation campaign. As for winter, regardless of the year the Germans were still left with a window of 4-5 months to compete operations before the rain began in earnest

the russian militarization campaign was not that impressive in my opinion and i think the germans would have benefitted more from that extra year then the russians would have.
especially because it could have meant that they could have broken the british.



Germany did possess chemical weapons and they did employ them on the Eastern Front. They did not see mass use due to both their ineffectiveness and the fear of Allied retaliation
their effectiveness is not so much measured in deaths but in how much they hinder the enemy and seeing how the USSR would have had trouble with supplying gasmasks to all of their troops in the early stages of the war on the eastern front you can imagine how they would have struggled.




Which would accomplish what, exactly? Franco's Spain was economically in ruins and militarily weaker than even Italy. The last thing Germany needed was another ally to prop up. Incidentally an alliance was attempted but Franco's price (a large chunk of French Africa) was judged, correctly, by the Germans to a) be too steep a price for what Spain could contribute, and b) pose a serious risk of completely alienating Vichy France

spain could have been used as an industrial base for german war materials instead of supplying actual troops.
atleast that is how i would have used them.
and regarding that price well promises can be made all the time just look at the german-USSR non agression pact.

[ComradeOm]

exactly my point by not focusing on 1 mass production tank they wasted a lot of resources and production capability.
their best bet in my opinion was mass production of the panther tank so that they had the best balance of numbers and quality so that they could invade deeper into the USSR and prevent the soviets from benefiting from their immense resourcesHuh? The quality of the Panther was completely irrelevant to the penetration of the USSR. That was simple logistical constraints


well the spare parts is partially solved by simply resorting to 1 tank design and the turning point of the war is up to debate that i am not interested in.You miss my point, historically Germany did not devote nearly enough resources to spare parts and instead focused on simply hitting tank production numbers. It doesn't matter if German industry is producing one great tank with one kit of parts, the same skewed agenda remains. Unless you want to handwave that away as well


eventually yes they would have entered but what matters is how the war would have looked like had their entry been delayed by many months or even a year or 2.US aid was near irrelevant to German defeat on the Eastern Front. The most crucial Land-Lease shipments to the USSR took the form of trucks and other logistical aids - vital for the devastating Soviet counterattacks of '43 onwards but not a major factor in the survival of the Soviet state (which, as I've stated, was much more a matter of German constraints). Unless Nazi Germany obtains a swift knockout blow in '41 or '42 (ie, before the Panthers come online) then German soldiers will still be dying in the mud of Russia when the US inevitably enters the war


the russian militarization campaign was not that impressive in my opinion and i think the germans would have benefitted more from that extra year then the russians would have.Well then you are simply wrong. Frankly I know of no historian (of note or otherwise) who contends that Nazi Germany would have benefited from an additional year of uneasy peace. The disasters of '41 can be almost entirely traced to the lingering effects of the Great Purges and transitional deployments of an army in the midst of reform. In another year the Wehrmacht would have faced a Red Army that was well positioned/prepared, well led, and well armed. Not to mention possessing a vast numerical advantage. Repeat Barbarossa? The Wehrmacht wouldn't even make it out of Eastern Poland!


especially because it could have meant that they could have broken the british.How? Hitler had no plan to defeat the British and Sea Lion was a bad joke. The Luftwaffe proved unable to complete one of the tasks assigned to it (destroying the RAF) never mind securing the Channel... a task that it proved to be equally woeful at. Which is not to mention the other 'fine details' of that plan... such as crossing the Channel in unstable river barges. There are plenty of websites out there that explode this myth in great detail


their effectiveness is not so much measured in deaths but in how much they hinder the enemy and seeing how the USSR would have had trouble with supplying gasmasks to all of their troops in the early stages of the war on the eastern front you can imagine how they would have struggled.1) Germany did not have the industrial capacity to manufacture even a fraction of the gas it would have needed to be effective on a front the size of Russia

2) Chemical warfare is best used against prepared enemy positions (such as Sevastopol). It has little use in the open mobile warfare that the Germans pinned all their hopes on


spain could have been used as an industrial base for german war materials instead of supplying actual troops.Spain's industrial base was in ruins after years of civil war. It would have represented a tiny fraction of that already domestically available to Germany. Everyone, from Franco to Hitler, was aware of this at the time

[The Spirit of 1918]

????

"Murder Kustaa", finnisation of Gustaf, as in Carl Gustaf.

Name he got while being hailed as the the hero and savior of the White Finland, and the symbol of concentration camps, executions and mass graves for the Reds or their surviving families.


Well, I will look for it, but chances are it hasnt been translated, so I will stick to the Unknown Soldier.I believe the whole trilogy's been translated to english lately.
But great reading anyhoo, if youre interested in the lifes of early 20th century tavastian tenant farmers, arrival of socialism in Finland, and the Finnish civil war. And it's also kind of a prequel to Unkown Soldier.

And sorry about the offtopic.