If Hitler wasn't such an idiot....

I get this feeling that Germany could have won WWII if they weren't led in such an incompetent manner.

Would my suspicions be confirmed if the following happened?

1.) The Germans wiped out the British at Dunkirk.

2.) Fully mobilized their economy for war, and didn't decrease weapons production after the initial advances against the Russians.

3.) Deployed their U-Boats in the Mediterranean ASAP in order to screw over the British Navy while they had the chance.

4.) Standardized the production base more extensively.

5.) Used the Waterfall Surface to air missile against the Allied Bombers.

6.) Reinforced Rommel better in order to gain a route into the Middle East.

7.) Tried to take out as much Russian industry as possible before they could be moved to the Urals.

8.) Thrown the Americans/British off the beaches at D-Day.

They should never have invaded Russia... you can't fight a two front war. And only one group has ever succesfully invaded Russia in winter: The Mongols (who in fact, invaded them in winter because it would be easier for them, due to river crossing with their horses).
But they possibly could have won... and almost deffently if the American's hadn't been attacked and never got invlovled.

Well if Germany had gone into total war economy when UK did it in 1940 or even waited until they invaded Russia in 1941 they could have won in the east in 1942/43.

An allied invasion in Normandy in 1944 would have been impossible against a fully mobilized Germany. And it might not even have been possible at all later as the US/UK economy would not have been able to make a strong enough superiority in material and men. Of course USA would have the nuclear bomb.

But Germany didnt start on the total war economy until it was too late.

Quote:

---

They should never have invaded Russia... you can't fight a two front war

---

Depends on how strong the two fronts are ~;)

Germany was pretty close at doing it in WW1 and actually did defeat Russia.


CBR

Also, if Hitler hadn't done stupid things like ordering his army south of Stalingrad, where it had cut off the oil supply to Russia, to invade Stalingrad.
Delayed development of things like fighter jets and assualt rifles...

Luckily for us, he was an idiot.

Crazed Rabbit

Hitler also made a bad mistake in treating the eastern slav's as poorly as he did! The Soviet government was very unpopular even among ethnic Russians. If they had treated them decently, resistance to the German occupation would have been weaker. It would also have allowed the Germans to recruit Poles and Ukrainians to a much greater extent than they did possibly including the formation of combat divisions at an earlier stage in the conflict.
Strangely enough this was done later by the SS.

Guys you forget that Hitler was to a great deal part of the early successes. There is a reason he got so stubborn in his "I'm the greatest warlord ever" belief. Remember that while he didn't create the plan for the invasion of the west, he was the only one who considered it viable. His gambles were great and surprising in the beginning. So if we remove him then we also remove much of the early successes. At least much of the what was accomplished would have taken longer, and then it doesn't seem as it Germany would attack Russia. Bright enough one would say, but Stalin was not at ease with a strong Germany and planned to attack it. So at some point the war with him would come. On homefield or away, take your pick.

If the Germans had conquered Russia, they would still have to tie up hundreds of thousands of troops to quell the revolts that would come.

Stalingrad could have been won too, if the Germans hadn't insisted on using stormtroopers to take the final city parts. Had they used their entire army present, they could have taken Stalingrad, albeit with casualties.

And Hitler was the sole reason for the failed German fallback in 44. He ordered that the German army corps' should let themselves be surrounded, and then they would punch out. And if he had ordered Army Group Kurland (previous Army Group North I think) to be evacuated from Latvia, the war would have raged on longer.

When you look at the population ratio of Russia and Germany at the time, it would be inevitable that sooner or later Hitler would have run into trouble out there.

Yes he would have been able to destroy the unpopular Soviet leadership had he struck at Moscow... But he would treat the natives just as bad whent he occupation came, because the Slavs were considered sub-human by Nazi ideology (you only need look at how he treated the Polish for an example).

The German army would have been spread out with a vast territory to hold onto with a large hostile native population, rebellion would have come and he would have had trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Emperor

When you look at the population ratio of Russia and Germany at the time, it would be inevitable that sooner or later Hitler would have run into trouble out there.

Yes he would have been able to destroy the unpopular Soviet leadership had he struck at Moscow... But he would treat the natives just as bad whent he occupation came, because the Slavs were considered sub-human by Nazi ideology (you only need look at how he treated the Polish for an example).

The German army would have been spread out with a vast territory to hold onto with a large hostile native population, rebellion would have come and he would have had trouble.

---

NAZI ideology did not prevent the SS from recruiting so-called subhumans into the Waffen SS. Dictator's can explain away what they need to! As regards to rebellion on the eastern front, there is no question that eventually the Germans would face national aspirations and independence movements.
The question is timing. If it gave two years or even less it would have been enough. If half or a third of the air force and army deployed on the eastern front could have been shifted elsewhere the effect would have been significant.

Eh, just a few tidbits on the topic of flexibility of Nazi dogmas. Once the Japanese allied with Germany, the "researchers" duly came up with "evidence" that proved their Aryan heritage; and when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact left Finland on the Soviet half that was okay, as the Finns were just another bunch of subhuman mongols. When the Finns fought off the Soviet assault and, embittered, started looking for friends and a rematch, they suddenly turned into good Aryans on the side too...

But, then, fascist ideology in general and the Nazi variant in particular gloried in irrationality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

But, then, fascist ideology in general and the Nazi variant in particular gloried in irrationality.

---

As oppossed to what ideology that doesn't?
The equality of man? Absent a belief in god where does that come from, if not an irrational belief in something needed for society to function?

No, fascism is fundamentally irrational. It plays on feelings and big emotions and considers reason, education, coherent formulations etc. "academic decadence" or something similar. We're talking heavy-duty populism for the lowest common denominator here. Follow the Leader.

Religions aside (which are something of a special case anyway) most ideologies generally try for a comparably solid and coherent body of beliefs and arguments. The Nazis were just plain lunatic, although that didn't keep them from appreciating the practical fruits of higher learning such as weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

No, fascism is fundamentally irrational. It plays on feelings and big emotions and considers reason, education, coherent formulations etc. "academic decadence" or something similar. We're talking heavy-duty populism for the lowest common denominator here. Follow the Leader.

Religions aside (which are something of a special case anyway) most ideologies generally try for a comparably solid and coherent body of beliefs and arguments. The Nazis were just plain lunatic, although that didn't keep them from appreciating the practical fruits of higher learning such as weapons.

---

I agree that they were loons.
However are our philosophical underpinnings any less ridiculous?
All men are created equal is one of the fundamental values of western states, and yet it is patently false. Setting aside religion an hostile, obnoxious, ugly, stupid man in a wheelchair is in no way the equal of a handsome, intelligent star athlete with a great personality! And yet we maintain this fiction due to it's value in our society.

How is that any different than a religion or fascist ideology?

Err...the idea is that the guy in wheelchair, despite all his problems, has equal inherent worth as a human being as the superstar - regardless of any achievements or suchlike, which are in any case subjective in value.

That's more or less the underlying principle "modern" values since around the Enlightement (a pretty narcissistic name BTW, given that the guys invented it themselves...) have built on. Regardless of any logical considerations it has at least one thing going for itself - if properly applied it results in a pretty nice society to live in.

As a side note, fascism was pretty much from the word go a reaction against just this idea. It is, quite frankly, an inherently vicious line of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Err...the idea is that the guy in wheelchair, despite all his problems, has equal inherent worth as a human being as the superstar - regardless of any achievements or suchlike, which are in any case subjective in value..

---

Inherent worth based on what scale or judgement. Worth implies value and by what standard do you say that the unfortunate man is of equal or approximate value to the fortunate son.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

That's more or less the underlying principle "modern" values since around the Enlightement (a pretty narcissistic name BTW, given that the guys invented it themselves...) have built on. Regardless of any logical considerations it has at least one thing going for itself - if properly applied it results in a pretty nice society to live in. .

---

Which is why we believe in a lie. Because of it's value to us. How then do we critic bible thumpers by saying god doesn't exist when we live in a glass house?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

As a side note, fascism was pretty much from the word go a reaction against just this idea. It is, quite frankly, an inherently vicious line of thinking.

---

Agreed and that is why hypocrisy is of such value to our society and every society. Living without some kind of false paradigm get's nasty. The fascists were as vicious as you say and and deluded in their thinking.

Well, as to the topic at hand IMO a certain man (Napoleon Bonaparte) brought a similar nation out of seemingly tragic dissarray, forged it into a major military power, marched across half of Europe and in the end everyone gained up on him and he was beaten back. IMO the similarities between the two countries are surprising: both had lost a major war in which it gambled almost everything and lost (World War I, Seven Years' War), both were in complete disorder on a governmental level (Great Depression and Weimar Republic, French Revolution) and both brought their nation out of those times and helped it become a military superpower. There the difference begins, Napoleon did everything we criticize Hitler for not doing: he conquered his enemies one at a time, he never waged a two-front war until the end, he knew how to run his battles and who to rely on for logistics and planning and through this he effectively conquered almost all of Europe. But in the end he was defeated because in doing all this he made too many enemies. He couldn't nab the Russians, the Germans betrayed him and the British finished him off. Just my two cents, if you don't think there is a comparison to be made you don't have to make one. ~:)

Very good comparison lonewolf... very good indeed. I've never thought of it that way (at least not in that detail) but now I am thinking... you are fundamentally right.

My own two eurocents:

- Hitler was not paranoid nor incompetent as a commander. He was doing fairly well (and extraordinarily well in the early stages of the war and actually in every offensive campaign - his ideological buildup and stubbornes though have rendered every attempt at defensive warfare he conducted into a catastrophe) until the pressure became too big for one nation to handle - even a nation at arms as Germany was.

Hitler's move into USSR was not completely irrational. He knew all too well that his geopolitical aims (control continent Europe, secure the German lebensraum, dominate the northern seas and a few others) could not become an establishment unless he could force some sort of “New Order” upon his enemies. He knew the powerhouse USA was (enormous potential) and he knew all too well that in a prolonged attrition war Germany was bound to lose, due to limited resources. He also knew that prolonging his animosity with “the West” would jeopardize everything, because in the East his newfound "allies” would not stop in getting half Poland – and giving Stalin more time to prepare and use the endless Soviet Union resources could only lead to Hitler’s (and the Nazis) demise sooner or later.

So, he made a choice that regarding the circumstances was not at all irrational: He let Britain be, and turned East, in his effort to persuade the British (“racial brothers”, according to Hitler himself) and the Americans (likewise) that his is an emeny of communism and that all he cares about is destroying the “red danger”. By that he aimed at getting a favorable treatment by the West and at the same time catch Stalin unprepared (he understood that USSR needed at least two more years of preparation to become operationally on par with the Wehrmacht… he had right).

Maybe he was looking for some kind of moratorium by the West, so he could beat USSR soundly and quickly – he miscalculated two factors though: the one being the unfeasible of his hopes to “beat USSR” (how can you beat a country with endless reserves, 20X your resources and almost endless strategic depth?) and the other being the determination of USA to secure for herself the role of the leadership of “the West” – a role Hitler was hoping to gain for his own nation.

If we are looking for a gross example of Hitler blundering in a strategic level (at tactical level he blundered a lot) we’ve got to point out these:
- His allies. The axis was a complete disaster from day one. Italy was an incompetent ally (the Nazis had to invade Greece to save the arses of the retreating Italians and had to do the same in North Africa as well) and left Germany alone at a very crucial point. Japan was anything but incompetent, but the alliance with those brought upon Hitler what he was trying desperately to avoid: an open war with USA.
- His decision not to enforce the Africa Corps enough to throw the British out of Africa. Had that been the case, the Germans would get hold of the middle east oilfields, get the Turks by their side and open a new southern front for USSR. If that was the case, the outcome of this war might’ve been very different.

All in All I am happy about Hitler’s blunders and about his miscalculations as well. Although the post WW2 world sucks on a mass scale (and what happened in my country – civil war in the aftermath of the war – sucks even more) but I like that better than the alternatives: A Nazi-held western Europe (that’s the ultimate nightmare scenario) or a Red Europe (a smaller scale nightmare).

For all of his "proletarian" populism Hitler actually relied pretty heavily on the old aristocratic Prussian higher commanders - those guys were something of an institution, and a highly succesful one at that. Hitler, a former Corporal, at a few points in the early phases of the war pressed home several strategic ideas of his own in face of the generals' aprehension, and when these produced results he developed a rather exaggerated idea of his own military competence. On the side he filled the General Staff largely on political grounds with loyal yes-men and insisted on micromanaging field operations from thousands of kilometers away - much to the frustration of his field commanders and often with disastrous results. von Ritchoffen, brother of the late and illustrious Red Baron and head of the Luftwaffe on the East Front, is known to have observed in his diaries something along the lines of "Der Führer's sense has now completely parted company with his skull" following the encirclement of the Fifth Army in Stalingrad.

It ought to tell something that eventually the general corps tried to assasinate him in the interests of the Fatherland... The following purges killed off many of the brighter commanders, including Rommel.

Mind you, I've also read old Adolf also had a hankerin' for metamphetamines, probably dating back to the trenches of the Great War. Long-term side effects are knwon to include delusions and lapses of judgement...

Whether Germany could have won WWII all depends on what there aims were. Clausewitz teaches to align our methods with our objectives and not to try and achieve something that is beyond your military capacity. Germany was never going to win a war against the US but they could have achieved their aims. If they had started the war with limited objectives and then made peace as soon as they were in a position to obtain them then they could have won WWII.

along the lines of what Kraxis said, if you say Hitler was an idiot for his failures then you also have to call him an idiot for his successes.

the same stubborness and risk taking in the face of considerable odds that lead to fiascos like stalingrad and the two front war against the u.s. and u.s.s.r. is the same stubborness and risk taking that lead to remilitarizing the rhineland, the anshluss with austria, and the two front war against poland, and britain/france. in fact the earlier gambles hitler took held much greater risks and chances of failure than the later ones. but he just didn't know when to quit and he couldn't have known when to quit otherwise he wouldn't have been as initially succesful in the first place. its kinda like a catch-22.

the same anlysis, in my opinion, holds true for napoleon. napoleon drew up unrealistic plans for the french forces to defeat the austrians in italy in 1796, and when the french army commander complained, he was replaced by napoleon who proceded to defeat the austrians in italy in 1796. he then managed to beat coalition after coalition arrayed against him but didn't know when to stop. whereas you could reasonably argue that the earlier coalitions seriously threatened france, there is no way the spanish or russians were ever planning on marching on paris until nappy had to go get involved there. and like hitler the odds were much greater in the beginning against him than later on, but because the earlier success help feed the megalomania, they couldn't comprehend that if you keep taking risks, eventually your luck will turn.

Do you really think there was enough people in Germany+allies to occupy Russia? You would get 1 soldier every 20 square km or so (dont quote me on this, but I actually made a calculation a few years ago, I think the result was somewhere in that range).

I know that invading russia was the only sollution Germany had provided that the polish managed to read the russian secret messages and let the germans know that Stalin himself was preparing an offensive on Germany.... But still invading russia with the aim of annexing in is a BAD idea. One of the worst things you could possibly do in fact. Russia has to be conquered in small manageable chunks, not marching in a wide front from the White sea to the Black sea.

And now to another point.
Do you really think that if the US did not intervene in the war at all the Russians would have been defeated? Or that the Germans would have won? Of course Im only speculating here as there is no possible way to prove it, but I doubt it.

After 1943 the russians had enough industry recovered and enough weapons to stop and later drive back the germans. Yes, they filled the trenches with the corpses of the soldiers, but they drove the germans back. And they were the first in doing so.

And as of the US: IMO (and I dont want to offend anyone) the US were waiting to see who would get the upper hand in the war and then ally with the winner. If it wasnt because of the japanese attack, thats what they would have done. They did that in the Spanish war (36-39).

Ok, enough.

Regards. ~;)

1.) The Germans wiped out the British at Dunkirk.

Well, then we would be down 350,000 men. Thats a lot of troops. However, it didn't matter how few troops we had as long as we had a navy that controlled the Channel and an airforce to protect them, meaning that the Germans would not be able to invade. Long term the effects would be much greater, we were stretched for troops all around the world for the duration of the war, and in the late summer of 1944 began disbanding regiments as we didn't have enough men coming through to support our number of units. I would imagine that even before the Japanese attack we would have had to abandon some of our territories because of our inability to garrison them. I would imagine most of these would be in the far east as the European war would have been the higher priority, possibly some could have been passed over to the US for protection as we did with Iceland. In order to provide troops for Europe we would probably have not been able to mount any campaigns in the CBI theatre.

2.) Fully mobilized their economy for war, and didn't decrease weapons production after the initial advances against the Russians.

When whatisname became production minister German production in 44 and 45 was at record highs, but it mattered little as many of them were still either over-engineered or of poor quality, the tanks had no fuel and the planes had no fuel OR pilots. Even fully mobilized the German economy was out produced by the Russians and the Americans individually. Combined they swamped German production.

3.) Deployed their U-Boats in the Mediterranean ASAP in order to screw over the British Navy while they had the chance.

Don't really think this would have made much of a difference. Much of the early U-boat success was down to 2 factors - 1) Breaking British naval codes thus knowing where to place their wolf packs in order to intercept convoys. 2) The mid atlantic gap where patrol planes were unable to reach. The Med is not the N Atlantic. Its small and the British had several key naval & air bases - Gibralter, Malta, Alexandria etc. Theres only so many places a U-boat could hide there, not to mention they'd have to journey through the British controlled straights of Gibralter. And why would the Germans have sent their subs to the Med? That was the Italian area of operations and the U-boats were wreaking havoc in the Atlantic, which as the Germans knew, was a key battleground, and one they very nearly won. Finally, IIRC Italian subs performed pretty effectively against the British.

4.) Standardized the production base more extensively.

This would have helped but it certainly would not have made a war winning difference.

5.) Used the Waterfall Surface to air missile against the Allied Bombers.

Well, I think German tactics against allied bombers were pretty effective as they were. RAF Bomber Command aircrews had the 2nd highest casualty rate of any group in the war and USAAF bomber losses weren't far behind. SAMs were a new technology that had not matured yet, and I don't think the amount of work needed to develop them into an effective weapons system would have been justifiable.

6.) Reinforced Rommel better in order to gain a route into the Middle East.

Easier said than done. The Germans were so heavily committed in Russia they didn't have much to spare, and more to the point, they failed to take Malta. From Malta the RAF and RN just decimated german supply lines by sea and air to N Africa. I forget the statistic as to how much German materiel intended for N Africa ended up at the bottom of the sea, but it was most of it.

7.) Tried to take out as much Russian industry as possible before they could be moved to the Urals.

Not sure how they would do this as the Luftwaffe was not built as a strategic bomber force, it was build to support the Army. And did the Germans even know the Russians were relocating their industry?

8.) Thrown the Americans/British off the beaches at D-Day

This could have been done several ways - if the Germans had acted upon the intelligence they received forewarning them of the invasion and mobilised their army in advance. If the 21st Panzer division had been allowed to move at 3am when they first received orders to standby as the invasion was underway.

If they had thrown us back, then an invasion of Europe would have been postponed at least 1 year and the Germans would have been able to transfer 10s of divisions to the Eastern front and possibly stalled the Russian advance leading to a stalemate there. Ultimately though it wouldn't have mattered cos we had the bomb and they didn't. It would have been a case of wave bye-bye to Berlin everyone.


I have some more potential turning points of my own.

What if the Germans had persisted in bombing the RAFs airfields during the BoB. If they had persisted with that tactic the RAF were about 1 week away from defeat.

What if Hitler had not delayed the invasion of Russia by 6 weeks in order to help out the failing Italian campaign in Yugoslavia and Greece?

What if the Ohio had not limped into Valetta harbour, barely afloat, carrying precious fuel for the planes based on Malta? British memos of the time report that they about 1 weeks supply of petrol and water left. Once they ran out surrender of Malta would be the only option.

What if the Germans realised that we had broken their enigma codes? They did actually investigate the possibility, but decided with a touch of arrogance, that Enigma was unbreakable.