Jump to content


WWII: Alternative History as Germany

Alternative History WWII Fun Discussion

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
93 replies to this topic

RPGStylee #41 Posted 23 February 2015 - 08:53 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14782 battles
  • 13,632
  • Member since:
    05-12-2014

View PostSTLxSTANG, on 23 February 2015 - 08:20 AM, said:

 

Too late, Uncle Sams comin for dat azz.

 

I'll just not declare war on the US, for no reason, and give up control of the U-boats. The Reich might end but Germany will still have control over Europe because "us poor Germans, taking the brunt of Stalins war machine head on, we need this, and that, a statue to Hitler the founder of the union built here" and so on.

CHECK OUT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!

Please do it I have slow self-esteem you don't want to hurt my feels do you?

 

Head Kanonenjagdpanzer sales expert


MegaB0B0 #42 Posted 23 February 2015 - 09:02 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostBeef McLargeBig, on 23 February 2015 - 08:55 AM, said:

1. Not invade the USSR

2. Tell scientists that their main priority is to perfect Panther/Tiger designs`and improved small arms. Any scientist who gives me some stupid superweapon idea goes to camp. 

3. Scrap large portions of the U-Boat fleet and use the metal for further production

4. Make sure people don't get lazy with Enigma machines.

And other stuff which I'll probably think of later.

 

 

well, as one got loads of books on period developed alternative history ideas, I agree with no.1, no.2 is rather not german cause German engineering is known to be innovative complex that takes years to perfect, always service nightmare even today... Germany won't get the rockets jets, the lot if weren't for approval of crazy ideas... 

 

For 3, disagree, all they need is more UBoat more advance ones, cause we all know how deadly subs are today.

For 4, can't agree more... In fact, German and Japan would be in a way better position of both side didn't lost the intelligence war...

 


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!

MythicSix61 #43 Posted 23 February 2015 - 09:06 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 99
  • Member since:
    01-17-2015

View PostTWISTED METAL V, on 23 February 2015 - 03:53 AM, said:

"Nein! Panzer! Achtung! Panzer Jäger!"

 

Come to think of it U.S.A is doing what germany did 70 years ago. Huh how ironic. also now in days people look at USA and think " bunch of lazy pigs" lol I Really mean no offense but it is true not every state is a good one just so you know.

 

....... What?

PeteyTheRed #44 Posted 23 February 2015 - 09:12 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9121 battles
  • 94
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostR35T 1N PEACE, on 23 February 2015 - 12:27 AM, said:

Die in WW1 and do the world a favour.

 

Got it in one :)
:sceptic:

Matthew J35U5 #45 Posted 23 February 2015 - 11:23 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostMushinWolf, on 23 February 2015 - 03:21 AM, said:

Amongst many other sterling ideas on here so far, I would Not sell the steel presses to Russia that allowed them to eventually come up with rounded armour for the T-34 etc (As mentioned in Herr Carius's book).

 

Maybe,eventually they'd come up with it on their own..or maybe not, but definitely worth trying to stop a Lot of future troubles!

I'm sure that Stalin could find other sellers. Capitalists are in the business of selling afterall. 

View PostNavyman8390, on 23 February 2015 - 01:57 AM, said:

First off, Hitler elected chancellor in 1933 Jan. I think.

1. Do not do something so immoral as try to xterminate a whole people group.

2. Finish Graf Zepplin and build 2 more carriers yet in addition to 6 more Bismark BBs.

3. Go through with Operation Sealion taking out England.

4. Leave Russia alone at least until England taken out and Med. secure.

5. Listen to your generals. They are professionals.

6. Do not waste excessive resources on Wunder Weapons. (Jets okay)

 

View PostSyks7, on 23 February 2015 - 01:23 AM, said:

Agree that Sea Lion was not technically feasible at the time it was being considered.  But given some time and without wasting the resources on attacking Russia?  Maybe.  The point being that concentrating forces could have had some effect.  Focusing on the british first means more troops for Afrika corp & more troops to use on Sea Lion etc...  Who knows its all just conjecture anyway.

Sea lion really just won't work. Germany would need years to build enough ships to invade. 

​And considering that the Nazi's must invade the Soviet Union, and any invasion that does not happen on June 22 1941 is not going to be successful, Sea Lion is just a pipe dream. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Nocturnal814 #46 Posted 23 February 2015 - 12:32 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013
Then there's also the fact that Stalin was planning to attack first... also, attacking russia without first going through Poland might have been an issue, considering that's what got the French and brits into the war... maybe concentrate on taking care of Africa before trying to invade britain, which also allows an alternate route into russia and forces the British to go all the way around Africa with their shipping instead of using the sue canal.

something, something, something, dark side...

MegaB0B0 #47 Posted 23 February 2015 - 12:50 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 23 February 2015 - 09:23 PM, said:

I'm sure that Stalin could find other sellers. Capitalists are in the business of selling afterall.

Sea lion really just won't work. Germany would need years to build enough ships to invade. 

​And considering that the Nazi's must invade the Soviet Union, and any invasion that does not happen on June 22 1941 is not going to be successful, Sea Lion is just a pipe dream.

 

 

 

Hitler was RIGHT to invade at that time frame just as the Japanese have done it to China, cause any delay would not achieve the massive success it saw in history.

Primary because like Japan invades China before the Nationalist party would set up whole production line of Panzer 3 (even panzer 4) tanks in China in 1940, plus purchase advance aircraft including early versions of Be-109, if Japan made their move in 1939/40, China would have one German instructor trained panzer division armed and equipped import German tanks ready to crash the crappy Japanese paper tanks corps in both material quality and tactical training. History of China would be very different.


 

The same goes for invasion of Russia, if the war was delay by a year or so, thousands more high quality T-34 and KV-1 would be installed and troops trained to operate them, Stalin's stupid purge effect would be less benefit to the invasion, because new generation fresh commanders would at least capable of a functional command chain structure in respond to the invasion than the massive chaos seen with red army units in real history.

The argument can put out is to make the invasion early instead of later. Yet, real history shows the April May time frame was a rainy season that turns roads in Poland to present day Ukraine to mud tracks, that would seriously hamper advancing troops.


 


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!

MegaB0B0 #48 Posted 23 February 2015 - 01:10 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 23 February 2015 - 10:57 AM, said:

If I may, the historical discussions forum is a better place for this. I don't mean to say that in a negative way, but because the historical forum is a bit slower this topic will exist for... well pretty much forever. (Idk, 6+ months). Chances are this thread will get buried in a day or two which will be rather unfortunate. I'll think about this later, but for now I'll just look at what other people are thinking.

A long-term friendship with Stalin is impossible, as Hitler sees no possible direction for Germany other than expansion to the east. Because blah blah blah, US is jew-run cabal that will take over the world unless Germany can become as big and powerful as the US.

U-Boats were actually one of the few good things Germany had going for it. Remove the surface fleet, and you possibly have enough U-boats to starve Britain into submission. 
And of course, not invading the USSR at all is impossible because of idealogical constraints.

At least don't side with Japan against America. Hypothetically if Britain were forced to surrender, America involving itself in the Pacific could buy you enough time to attempt to conquer the USSR, which as I have noted previously is not something that Nazi Germany can't do.

How can Germany help Japan with its oil shortage? That is, with only access to Rumanian oil, it is rather difficult to supply Japan with oil, especially when Germany needs Rumanian oil for its own needs. 

I want to write sometime on how the whole, "Hitler should have left the soldiering to the generals" is rather misplaced.

The cruisers and battleships were rather a waste of resources. Better to build more U-boats.

Sea lion is almost literally impossible. 

The Stalingrad campaign is more appropriately seen as a problem of trying to do too much with too little. Army group South just didn't really have the necessary resources, and Stavka has very large reserves it can use to counter Army group south.

TBH, I think this is the actual answer.

Well, look at it this way:
Say that the "cost" of a vehicle can be modelled by its weight, because that will give you an idea of how much resources were put into it, and how big it likely is. 
The Panther and the IS-2 cost the same amount...
The Panther is very vulnerable except in a very narrow frontal arc. The IS-2 is relatively well protected across a much wider frontal arc. 

The Panther is only really effective against tanks, or against individual infantry that it can engage with its coaxial. The IS-2 has a multipurpose gun that works against tanks, fortifications, infantry, can even work as a make-shift field gun for indirect fire support. 

And then of course you have the issue that the Panther is a 45 ton tank on a suspension & drive train meant for a 30-35 ton tank.

 

I agree with many of your assessments :) as they were mostly correct. The saga between US native industrialist such as Ford and bankers with Germany should be better known. That cabal even tried to get a US general to overthrow FDR and install a puppet that control by them!

Germany was stupid to side with the enemy's enemy: Japan that abandons far more resource beneficial ally: China in the process.

The Prussian dominated high command strongly objects the Nazi Party's position to side with Japan, they prefer China by far. In fact, Germany never get more than benefit in forms of Gold paid for blueprints and German products from the technically inferior Japan. <Japan didn't even share their relatively advanced torpedo design with Germany, that's a piece of tech would cost Allies a lot more ships in the Uboat war.> The alliance didn't open a far eastern front with Russia, instead Germany declare war against USA! Allied with Japan is Nazi's Germanys worst foreign policy decision.

 


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!

KaiserVonKrieg #49 Posted 23 February 2015 - 01:20 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14915 battles
  • 5,286
  • [-NS-]
  • Member since:
    02-02-2015

Focus on one front.

Focus on the brits, get the hard part out the way and continue with the noob K/D ratio soviets later.

:trollface:Soviets and their negative K/D


Edited by KaiserVonKrieg, 23 February 2015 - 01:21 PM.


Uranprojekt #50 Posted 23 February 2015 - 01:51 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

Leaving the Soviets alone is all well and good but the Soviets aren't going to leave you alone. There were only ever two options on the Eastern Front, attack or be attacked. Peace was always out of the equation. Change the scenario all you want, you can't change the outcome. It doesn't matter if Hitler invades Russia in 1941 or Stalin launches an invasion of German occupied territories in 1942, the Red Army still reaches Berlin in the end. Germany, even with its industrial prowess, can't out-produce the Soviet Union and the Wehrmacht lacks the overall manpower to defeat the Soviets, regardless of who attacks who and when the attack happens. Build all the tanks, aircraft and ships you want, they're useless when you eventually run out of people to man them which will happen because the Soviets, even with a severe disadvantage in terms of experience, still posess the numerical advantage. The Red Army can afford to lose 20 soldiers for every 1 German soldier killed (as an example) so you're always going to lose.


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


Mr Crowley ll #51 Posted 23 February 2015 - 01:55 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 23951 battles
  • 3,162
  • [CRPT]
  • Member since:
    02-22-2014

View PostMegaB0B0, on 23 February 2015 - 03:02 AM, said:

 

well, as one got loads of books on period developed alternative history ideas, I agree with no.1, no.2 is rather not german cause German engineering is known to be innovative complex that takes years to perfect, always service nightmare even today... Germany won't get the rockets jets, the lot if weren't for approval of crazy ideas...

 

For 3, disagree, all they need is more UBoat more advance ones, cause we all know how deadly subs are today.

For 4, can't agree more... In fact, German and Japan would be in a way better position of both side didn't lost the intelligence war...

 

 

 

Agree on the U boats.  Can't let the supplies pouring in from the US and Canada go unchecked.  Losing control of the codes is why the  U boats lost their effectiveness.


 

 


WidowMaker1711 #52 Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:48 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostMr Crowley ll, on 23 February 2015 - 01:55 PM, said:

 

 

Agree on the U boats.  Can't let the supplies pouring in from the US and Canada go unchecked.  Losing control of the codes is why the  U boats lost their effectiveness.

 

They had advanced U boats. The Type IXc was way beyond anything else at the time. Except for the germans idea that bigger is best fails. It was unreliable compared to the Type VII


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Pit Friend #53 Posted 23 February 2015 - 06:13 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 33957 battles
  • 18,912
  • [PTATO]
  • Member since:
    07-14-2014

View PostWarspite 1996, on 22 February 2015 - 06:43 PM, said:

In terms of aerial production, Germany needed a long range single-seat fighter aircraft, like the P-51, that could escort attack aircraft for extended periods of time. One of the biggest issues in the Battle of Britain was that the Bf-109E-series lacked the appropriate range to provide sufficient air cover for German bombers, so Germany began relying on their twin-engined "heavy fighters", which were no match for British fighters in a direct engagement.

 

Wouldn't even need much of a redesign. The Luftwaffe was set up to support the army so long range wasn't a priority at first. All they would need would be to fit their Me109s with drop tanks like the later models were capable of and they should have had the range and duration to fight over Britain. And if they could have gained local air superiority then invasion becomes a possibility. 


When the nice guy loses his patience the devil shivers. 


xdeathenginex #54 Posted 23 February 2015 - 06:21 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28665 battles
  • 791
  • [HDC-R]
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostLynn Do Wicker, on 22 February 2015 - 06:07 PM, said:

Not invade USSR. Talk Japan out of pearl harbor. Those are the two biggest mistakes that cost the axis WWII

 

^^This^^ in a nutshell.  getting bogged down in Russia, while Japan's invasion on Pearl Harbor brought America truly into the war and forced the Western Front to be a focal point again was ultimately what Hitler needed to avoid - usually don't win when engaging two massive armies on two separate fronts.

"All flesh is equal when burnt.....HAIL THE APOCALYPSE!"

 

 

 


Matthew J35U5 #55 Posted 23 February 2015 - 06:36 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostUranprojekt, on 23 February 2015 - 08:51 AM, said:

Leaving the Soviets alone is all well and good but the Soviets aren't going to leave you alone. There were only ever two options on the Eastern Front, attack or be attacked. Peace was always out of the equation. Change the scenario all you want, you can't change the outcome. It doesn't matter if Hitler invades Russia in 1941 or Stalin launches an invasion of German occupied territories in 1942, the Red Army still reaches Berlin in the end. Germany, even with its industrial prowess, can't out-produce the Soviet Union and the Wehrmacht lacks the overall manpower to defeat the Soviets, regardless of who attacks who and when the attack happens. Build all the tanks, aircraft and ships you want, they're useless when you eventually run out of people to man them which will happen because the Soviets, even with a severe disadvantage in terms of experience, still posess the numerical advantage. The Red Army can afford to lose 20 soldiers for every 1 German soldier killed (as an example) so you're always going to lose.

The Soviet Union cannot afford to lose soldiers at an exchange rate of 20:1 considering their army was only ever about twice as large, and their country's population was only about twice as large. 


Anyway, about the topic of the thread:


Whatever else is changed about WWII, one thing must stay the same: Nazi Germany must go to war against the Soviet Union. Hitler, based on his ideas about the "World Jewish Conspiracy™" thinks that Germany is either fated to be subservient to Great Britain and the United States (Because free trade), or that it must become a completely self-sufficient nation by annexing territory in the east. Basically, either the Nazi's are in charge and they are going to launch a war of annihilation against the Soviet Union, or someone else is in charge and WWII doesn't happen. 

So, if we are to consider a war against the Soviet Union, it is evident that June 22, 1941 is the optimal start date. Before 1941 the Red Army hasn't been completely reorganized disorganized, following its poor performance in Finland, and noting second-hand the effectiveness of blitzkrieg deep battle. 

That is to say, the leadership of the red army was destroyed in the great purges, but the organization itself was more-or-less as it was before, after the fall of france and the winter war the Red Army was extensively reorganized and doctrine modified. 

Post 1941 of course, the Red Army will be better equipped, better trained and better led the more time passes. Considering how far behind technologically Germany was in 1941, this is unlikely to be to Germany's advantage. (Ironically Germany's greatest successes were when their equipment was qualitatively worse than their opponents). So, June 22, 1941 is when Germany must invade the Soviet Union. 

As an addendum, for Germany to "win" WWII, it must not fight America. Consider that America has about as large a population as the Soviet Union does (and thus can potentially field an army twice as large as Germany), and produced more military equipment and supplies than anyone else did, while at the same time growing their civilian economy. Basically, America was handily fighting a war on two fronts three fronts, while supplying its two major allies, and was producing better quality equipment than anyone else, while building a super-weapon on the side, and wasn't even devoting its entire industrial capacity to the war effort. 

So, there are two definite factors to keep in mind. Germany will lose if it fights the United States, and Germany must invade the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. 

Some bullet points:

  • Obviously issuing the US with a declaration of war post-Pearl Harbour is a bad idea. 
  • Situation between September 1939 and June 22 1940 isn't going to be improved upon
     

Thus, Germany needs to defeat Britain in the time between June 22 1940 and June 22 1941. An invasion is out-of-the-question. Sea Lion cannot work in the allotted time. The Battle of Britain will end in defeat whether you continue targeting military or civilian targets. For Sea Lion to work, or for the Battle of Britain to be successful, you would need to divert your manufacturing even further towards the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine, which needless to say will make it less likely that you can defeat France, and certainly Barbarossa will be much less successful with a weaker army. 

What is possible, is scrapping the entire surface fleet and building submarines instead. Apparently the time and resources could have produced another 200-300 U-boats, say 300 total by 1939. This force could perhaps have succeeded in starving Britain into submission. Possible problems with this would be the risk of drawing America into the war. (American ships getting sunk by German submarines won't be popular even if the American public is anti-war)

​So, put this down as a large question mark, Unrestricted submarine warfare, possibly defeat Britain, possibly bring America into the war. Considering that FDR wants to go to war with Germany, the latter of these possibilities seems more likely than the former. 

Looking thus at a war with the Soviet Union:
I would like to point out some common criticisms of Barbarossa:

  • Delayed by the Balkan expedition. 
    This is false. The invasion could not reasonably start earlier as the weather precluded it. 
  • The Kiev "southward turn" was a mistake, Germany should have launched Taifun earlier. 
    Again, false. While the Kiev encirclement was on-going the Soviet armies defending the approaches to Moscow were wasting their strength futilely against the defences of Army Group Centre. Had Taifun launched a month earlier the Wehrmacht would be throwing itself against a very large defending group of armies, while the 600,000 men defending Kiev are ready to attack their vulnerable flanks. 


In general, Barbarossa will not succeed because Germany is not logistically able to accomplish its objectives. However, each operation prior to Taifun was successful, so remaining on the defensive after destroying the defenders of Kiev is likely the best approach. One might presume that the Soviet winter offensives proceed in a similar fashion as OTL, though the time and place will clearly be different. 

The issue is at this point, where to go from here? The Leningrad axis is not very productive. The Moscow axis is where the strongest Soviet defences are, and is unlikely to be particularly productive. We are left with an attack towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus. As we all know, this didn't work out that well in OTL. Let us assume that Britain did capitulate, America did not enter the war, and the troops garrisoning Western Europe are available for service in the east. Enough that Army Group South can achieve the overly ambitious goals set for it? Likely not. Perhaps enough that the co-belligerents with Nazi Germany won't be placed in front-line positions? Maybe. Either way, Case Blue will not succeed. It will be harder to shatter the German defences than it was to destroy the Rumanian defences, but this is merely degrees of failure, not of success. 

Anyway, we can continue on in this fashion, but the fact is that most of the German decisions in WWII were either optimal for them, or while incredibly bad for them, were necessary based on the constraints of the situation. (I.e. Being Nazi Germany) Basically, Germany will not be able to win because they can neither defeat the Soviet Union, nor defeat the United States. However one wishes to change the choices Germany made, there are really only three end-states:

  • Soviet soldiers washing their feet in the Atlantic
  • German cities being destroyed by atomic bombs
  • The west and the east meeting in the middle. (I.e. What happened in reality)

The only winning move is not to play. (Or not be Nazi's.)


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


RAGNAR0K N ROLL #56 Posted 23 February 2015 - 07:07 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 19717 battles
  • 11,139
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013

View PostGUNMETALGREY1, on 22 February 2015 - 08:01 PM, said:

When I invade Russia, I come bearing gifts to the civilian population and as a liberator. I go to great lengths to sway the Ukrainians, White Russians and all the people of the Baltic States to help me overthrow the Communist regime. My army builds infrastructure and gives support to the Russian people as it advances. Once I have gained the support of the people, which won't take much as there is little love for Stalin, I rid the world of Bolshivism and can then dictate terms and prop up a puppet regime or restore the  Czar as a figurehead.

With my Eastern front secure and a supply of oil and food and a manpower supply to boost production, I turn my attention to England.

With my new found economic base, I increase U-boat production and starve England into submission or at very least force them to the negotiation table. I now go over to the strategic defensive and await further developments and opportunities.

 

 

 

 

 

This right here would have gone a long way towards a more successful campaign in the East. The whole racial genocide aspect of what the TR did played a major part in their downfall because it created an intense hatred of them and when you know its either fight or die well do the math from there. It became a war of survival for  those under Soviet rule at the time. Had the role been reversed insted to a liberator instead and capability to outfit/supply/train those same people who fell victim to the extermination squads would have been great allies. Same with the Jewish population a good part of which would have stood with or at the very least been an asset of some sort to their war efforts. It would have ended in a cold war of sorts in the end either way just with a different master and possibly a larger expanse of land under German control as in most of Europe. You may have to contend with some degree of the years of brainwashing by the Soviet Union on its people but propoganda isn't an entirely nation specific exercise; we had and still to a degree still do have a big propoganda machine; just goes by different names.

Also; don't waste time/effort on propping up Musollini and his 2 bit contributions.

 

I do realize a big part of what made the Nazi's what they were was the eugenics/racial motif they so strongly pushed but; really it didn't have to be and since the rule of this thread is what you would do different; I'd start with not being a genocidal madman and instead use those people to bolster my forces for all of our benefit.


The Warrior of The Wasteland...The Ayatollah of Rock N' Rolla....

 


MushinWolf #57 Posted 23 February 2015 - 07:36 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 3692 battles
  • 567
  • Member since:
    08-24-2013

Another major, but not so well known aspect of the war that was detrimental to the German warmachine, was the division of money and material.

The Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Heer and especially the SS guarded their own funding for various projects, materials for building stuff, engineers, & scientists at some points..basically the Wehrmachts resources were not streamlined into the best solutions to things like tanks, cannons etc but were divided between the competing services. 

This of course wasted a lot of money, effort and more drastically time and depleting resources..

 

As Uranprojekt has already said, the one resource Germany couldent replace but the Soviet Union could was man power.

 

Mother Russia wins.


--Predicted the Soviet tank line in May on 12/03/14 @ 1425HRS--

Libarate #58 Posted 23 February 2015 - 08:12 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9603 battles
  • 512
  • [8FAM]
  • Member since:
    03-13-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 23 February 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

Anyway, we can continue on in this fashion, but the fact is that most of the German decisions in WWII were either optimal for them, or while incredibly bad for them, were necessary based on the constraints of the situation. (I.e. Being Nazi Germany) Basically, Germany will not be able to win because they can neither defeat the Soviet Union, nor defeat the United States. However one wishes to change the choices Germany made, there are really only three end-states:

  • Soviet soldiers washing their feet in the Atlantic
  • German cities being destroyed by atomic bombs
  • The west and the east meeting in the middle. (I.e. What happened in reality)

The only winning move is not to play. (Or not be Nazi's.)

This paragraph is spot on, nearly everything went perfectly for Nazi Germany but the end result was never in doubt. The only thing you say that I disagree with is the U Boats possibly starving Britain out of the war. If the Germans start building enough Sub's to come close the British will build more escorts and Britain can build far more escorts.

 



HumdrumSwine2 #59 Posted 23 February 2015 - 08:31 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 11685 battles
  • 1,758
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

1. Supply Rommel with his needed supplies.

2. Finish off Britain directly following Dunkirk while the BEF was still without its equipment.

3. Develop a long range bomber for strategic bombing.

4. Invade USSR when they had originally intended to and not delay it.

5. Convince the Japanese to attack USSR from the East in conjunction with said invasion.

6. Get rid of that fat, inefficient pig Goering.

7. At this point, history changes so much that it's hard to tell what the Allies plans are.



HumdrumSwine2 #60 Posted 23 February 2015 - 08:43 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 11685 battles
  • 1,758
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013
Note that this takes into account hindsight. Hitler would understand and know what needs to be built, correct placement of troops/materiel, enemies placement, knowledge of their plans/contingencies and have 8 years to prepare/stockpile. Also, a large segment of the Soviet population did not like nor want Stalin. Had the Nazis entered the USSR as benefactors and not conquerors, things may have been much different.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users