Angilion I don't care who you or h4rm0ny are nor do I care about the nature of your personal beliefs. I'm sure that both of you are fine lads but claiming the Nazis were left wing is not just misinformation, it's lunacy so don't be surprised to be called on it when you bring that kind of "alternative" fact out in the open.
Could Germany have won WW2?
- Thread starter nightrider1470
- Start date
Angilion I don't care who you or h4rm0ny are nor do I care about the nature of your personal beliefs. I'm sure that both of you are fine lads but claiming the Nazis were left wing is not just misinformation, it's lunacy so don't be surprised to be called on it when you bring that kind of "alternative" fact out in the open.
Imo, Hitlers biggest mistake was rushing into War, had he bided his time and developed his “vengeance” weapons as offensive rather than retaliatory ones along with waiting until the ME 262 was the mainstream of the Luftwaffe then I think history would have turned out very differently.
Another thing was Hitler thinking he was a military strategist and leader - he was neither - had his Generals been allowed to take control of the various fronts rather than being hamstrung by his ridiculous dictats, again, history would be very different.
And thirdly, taking on Russia in the East before he’d neutralised the thread in the West, namely us by not invading which gave the allies their springboard into Europe on D-Day.
Ultimately what saved the free world from Hitler dominating it completely was Hitler himself.
Another thing was Hitler thinking he was a military strategist and leader - he was neither - had his Generals been allowed to take control of the various fronts rather than being hamstrung by his ridiculous dictats, again, history would be very different.
And thirdly, taking on Russia in the East before he’d neutralised the thread in the West, namely us by not invading which gave the allies their springboard into Europe on D-Day.
Ultimately what saved the free world from Hitler dominating it completely was Hitler himself.
His hands were somewhat tied in that regard due to restrictions placed on them after WW1 - even just developing tanks was a complex story.
Well, not really, think how much armaments he’d built up by the start of the war by either ignoring the restrictions or getting around them by bending the rules (think pocket battleships for example) and whilst he was hindered in tank development, it didn’t stop him building up a huge armoured reserve - the allied nations were so hell bent on appeasement I think he could have developed an incredibly advanced military without being hindered much so long as he’d refrained from taking territories until militarily he was ready.
Last edited:
Hitler and st
Defending Europes soft underbelly was always a problem and waste of resources for Germany after the allies had secured n Africa
Hitler invaded Poland with Russia as an allie... I don't think Stalin had eyes on conquering parts of Europe in the near future at all. Finland was always seen as Russian. Poland German Prussia.
Defending Europes soft underbelly was always a problem and waste of resources for Germany after the allies had secured n Africa
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 4,245
- Location
- Inverkip
The German Luftwaffe came very close to winning the Battle Of Britain. If they had total domination of the air, they would have been able to land troops without much problem meaning, in the event of a German victory, there would have been no base of operations for the US, not much of a desert war and Russia would have been open on it's southern flank with it's oilfields particularly vulnerable.
That's what I love about WWII, so many variables that where so close to changing the outcome of several major phases of the war.
That's what I love about WWII, so many variables that where so close to changing the outcome of several major phases of the war.
Depends what you mean by won, they were never going to beat the UK and USSR and USA all at once. However if Hitler had not been a tactical buffoon they could have easily either taken the UK or forced our conditional surrender and thus exit from the war.
There was a point where Goering had the RAF beat, our reserves were gone and Churchill had been warned that the Luftwaffe would have total air supremacy over the UK in under a fortnight. Luckily this was the same point that Hitler ordered him to stop attacking RAF bases/etc and focus on civilian areas to demoralise us, thus allowing the RAF the time needed to rally.
You have to remember that Hitler never wanted France or the UK, it's just he wanted our allies and after he invaded them we declared war on Germany so he had no choice but to fight us, after France surrendered they wouldn't have been occupied had that not been a requirement of invading Britain. If he could have got the UK to make peace too then he would either have pulled out of France and sat happy with the land he had won (Belgium, Poland, Austria, Czech, etc) or invaded the USSR knowing we wouldn't help them.
Well, that's the point at which his defeat was written in stone, there was simply no way for him to come back from that mistake. The supplies the USSR received from the UK/USSR meant they were able to hold Germany off until they could mobilise their population against him, not just more troops but more factories/production. There's a famous recording of Hitler talking (normal conversation not shouty speech voice) talking in 1942 about how reports say they have destroyed 35,000 Russian tanks and yet they keep coming.
There is an apparent irony in the way Germany used Blitzkreig to overrun their enemies at the start of the war, then had it throw back at them later on, and it's another testament to Hitlers incompetence. He saw how Frances superior tanks were no match for their weaker tanks in greater numbers and yet he insisted on small numbers of super awesome tanks, which got zerged down by swarms of T-34s that were so badly assembled they were highly vulnerable to molotov cocktails lol.
He was a tactical moron of the first degree and he refused to listen to any of his generals. To put it in perspective, while fighting the UK and losing to the USSR he declared war on the USA, because they declared war on his ally Japan (at this point there was no guarantee that the USA was actually entering the war in Europe) which is the exact same mistake France made against him.
It did indeed. However, once the weather saw to the army Aoviet production went through the roof. Something stupid like Germans thought them capable of only building a thousand tanks per month (manageable to beat) when in fact they were making 10,000 (I forget exactly what I read in Anthony Beevor).
I believe there is strong credence he did escape. US intelligence gave a memo to Hoover saying he was living in South America. The bone fragments given for testing were female and then destroyed. An awful lot about Hitlers life has been either destroyed or is suppressed. Imagine if the worlds most wanted man made it out and lived out his life elsewhere and did in fact have 2 children?
Possibly so. Apparently Hitlers tanks were his to control. In either case they were given a free pass. There is ample evidence both recorded and photographic to show after the initial attempt they were in some cases left alone in humiliation with but a few skirmishes and Luftwaffe stafes here and there
It's probably been said already but my understanding for the eastward expansion is described by 'Lebensraum'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
My personal view, though I think it is the correct one as well, is that Fascism requires Nationalism. I think those that think Fascism can be internationalist are those who've moved away from Fascism as an actual political system and towards using it as a synonym for authoritarian. In which case, yes - it could then of course be internationalist. Does that match with how you see it? For me, it's not that I am someone who thinks Fascism isn't nationalist, but that I am someone who sees nationalism as its own dimension rather than a property of Left or Right. I gave examples of both Right Wing internationalism and Left Wing nationalism earlier to support this view.
If we lost the battle of Britain and operation sealion happened then their would have been no base for the US, no aid convoys to Stalin. I'm certain that the UK would have fallen, eventually.
Russia would probably have soldiered on and eventually won, but Europe would be a communist mega state.
Nuclear weapons would still be developed and we would probably have had an atomic ww3 over north korea. I'm assuming USA will still have defeated the Japanese, which they practically did alone anyway. All of far Eastern territory would be given to Japan, Australia would probably also be part of a Japanese empire too, but ultimately impossible to lock down and solidify because of the USA.
So yeah spitfires, hurricanes and some ludicrously stupid decisions by Herman Goering certainly saved the day/year/future.
Russia would probably have soldiered on and eventually won, but Europe would be a communist mega state.
Nuclear weapons would still be developed and we would probably have had an atomic ww3 over north korea. I'm assuming USA will still have defeated the Japanese, which they practically did alone anyway. All of far Eastern territory would be given to Japan, Australia would probably also be part of a Japanese empire too, but ultimately impossible to lock down and solidify because of the USA.
So yeah spitfires, hurricanes and some ludicrously stupid decisions by Herman Goering certainly saved the day/year/future.
Nationalism was around along time before socialism and fascism.
Yes I'd say that the term can cross into both left and right political economic sides.
Nationhood is being wiped out by globalism but it seems stuff like brexit is rekindling strong national views.
Now all we need is a new Hitler to unite behind and we can rule the world.
Yes I'd say that the term can cross into both left and right political economic sides.
Nationhood is being wiped out by globalism but it seems stuff like brexit is rekindling strong national views.
Now all we need is a new Hitler to unite behind and we can rule the world.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,703
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Great thread.
I just travel around Europe visiting war places but I don't really know a great deal.
I just travel around Europe visiting war places but I don't really know a great deal.
Anyone who wants an interesting read, look up "Blitzed: Drugs in Nazi Germany".
The entire army was high on crystal meth and is how they were so quick in battle.
Weirdly, this stuff was never mentioned in school books but is public knowledge in Germany. Surely it would have been lapped up by allied media to further disgrace the enemy.
The entire army was high on crystal meth and is how they were so quick in battle.
Weirdly, this stuff was never mentioned in school books but is public knowledge in Germany. Surely it would have been lapped up by allied media to further disgrace the enemy.
That depends what you want to attribute as a socialist society. One could argue various indigenous tribes practice a socialist system in that all work for the benefit of their community/tribe thus in the political sense it matches up. The idea now is that as a civilized society people argue we will get the same result.
Nationalism was a later concept naturally given you have to have nation states. Tribes practised socialism but didn't know it was called that
Taking on Russia was the whole point of WW2, the war in the west was a sideshow by comparison and probably wouldn't even have happened at all if we hadn't declared war on Germany first.
In hindsight, I am not sure the world wouldn't have ended up a better place had Chamberlain said "Hey, I think we will just sit this one out chaps"
Allowing the Soviet Union to win WW2 was probably the most catastrophic error of the 20th century.
Incidentally, I can commend the books on the matter written by James Holland (He has also authererd some Adult lady bird books for the TL;DR version)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
Keep going lads its a very deep hole.
Keep going lads its a very deep hole.
I wonder how things would have gone if Hitler had just built up his forces until something happened - would countries have been stupid enough to do nothing at all or would we have atleast bolstered our capabilities in response - I'd assume it is something that Hitler was aware of that there could be a tipping point where countries couldn't bury their heads/appeasement any more that might have happened before he was ready.
It is kind of interesting that Germany had a covert tank program long before Hitler rose to power - WW2, etc. is often put entirely at the feet of the Nazis and Hitler but there doesn't seem to be a lack of people in general who wanted to see a resurgence of German might.