Never understood holocaust deniers myself but either way the I don't disagree with the sites analysis of this particular issue, I am convinced given the progress the Russian winter offensive achieved and their ability to do things on a grand scale leaving large salients to the north and south of Moscow would have been disastrous for AGC.

Originally Posted by errol

But the Germans used up precious resources and time. If von Bock was allowed to do what he wanted to do they would have atacked on a narrow front with full force and smashed there way into Moscow very quickly without major urban warfare. It would not have been another Stalingrad. The Russians were at the point of disintergration in July' 41. It was a different story in 42-43.

Sure it was still a gamble and I don't think it would have won them the war but I believe the Germans would have been in a stronger position than what actually occurred in 41-42.

The problem with this theory an narrow front, an army on a narrow front attack is a lot like a tight rope walker the farther out on the wire he gets the easier it is to knock him off!

Any Army that loses that number of men like the Germans did in Russia will soon run out out of manpwer. This was shown up when germany started to call up boys as young as 11 years old to fight for their country.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Any Army that loses that number of men like the Germans did in Russia will soon run out out of manpwer. This was shown up when germany started to call up boys as young as 11 years old to fight for their country.

You know what I find ironic about this is that had the Germans "delayed" their racial superiority crap they would have more than likely been able to raise a large enough army from anti-communist Russians to meet all of their needs. Basically they wasted untold resources and manpower to try and wipe out people that would have more than likely fought for them against the very people that beat them.

when Italy and Russia and America came aboard on the Allies side, there was no hope of Germany winning the war.

It pays to keep you're friends on you're side during the war.
May be someone should of told Hitler that!

Perhaps Italy was more of a hindrance for Germany before they switched sides!

Hehe I am convinced Hitler should have paid Italy to stay neutral or invaded it in 1940, at least they might have got a decent size fleet out of it.

In late 1940 Monty no one thought that Germany would lose the war, least of of all the Germans

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

In late 1940 Monty no one thought that Germany would lose the war, least of of all the Germans

This is a question I have pondered many times. When Hitler got France and the British just escaped via Dunkirk he seemed to forget what brought him victory in the first place. What brought him victory to that point was striking the enemy at his weakest points, Striking where they were not expected. Also the German army's Kampfgruppe tactics and striking quickly, which a Danzig newspaper called Blitzkrieg or lightning war. Its just semantics or playing with words to describe enveloping and striking at the enemy quickly.
He should have taken North Africa with as many panzer division's as it would take. Only admiral Raeder saw this as the only common sense move. Rommel picked up on it later. But for some reason Hitler expressed ridiculous ideas for his next move. He was obsessed with Gibralter and he wanted France's entry into the war on Germany's side. Franco refused him and so did Petain. He should have taken the French fleet and sent troops right into Algeria and Morocco. By not taking the fleet and taking Vichy's word on their half promise of Vichy troops being allied to Germany in North Africa, this man was suddenly asking for things when before, he just took them. He suddenly lost interest in Africa and then he made his monumental mistake by attacking the Soviet Union. Then stupidly he declared war on the United States. All these things along with his mass murder of Jews and Slavs could only bring one result. The unconditional Surrender of Germany. Adolf Hitler was Germany's Achille's heel.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

The problem, if you like, is that Hitler fell into war; he did not really plan for it initially. Then, when he found he was at war, he tried to keep it as a limited war until after the defeat of France where his ambition finally got the better of him. Most of the German High Command were deeply surprised at the ease of their victory over France and the BEF, Hitler included.

If Germany had somehow reached a long-term agreement with the Soviet Union they would have both the time and the resources to build up both their surface and u-boot fleets under a modified Z-Plan, as well as beefing up the Luftwaffe. A long-term peace between the 2 dominant European powers would have spelled disaster for the UK. Just as well that it was as about as likely as the Catholic and Protestant churches reforming. In that scenario, if the will had been there, it would only have been a matter of time before Britain fell. But I do not believe that would ever have happened and the UK would probably have fallen into line at least to neutrality towards Nazi Germany.

It goes without saying that had the Wehrmacht managed to get a reasonable force landed on the English coast soon after Dunkirk it would have been all over bar the shouting. Especially because the BEF would have virtually no heavy equipment having left it all behind in Normandy.

I agree that a long term peace between the Germany and Russia would have spelled doom for Britian. However, Zukhov had crafted a plan to invade Germany and Russia was preparing to implement it when German initiated Barbarossa. This IMHO is why Germany was so successful initially as the Russians were caught by surprise in their assembly areas.

I am coming late to this forum and wish to add a few more comments.

1. I believe that had Hitler allowed Hoth and Guderian to complete their attack on Moscow, before drawing down their forces to attack the Crimea, this would have significantly impacted Russias morale and ability to counterattack in the Winter.

2. Hitler placed too much faith in Goering's promise to win the Battle of Britain. The focus of the Luftwaffe should have been the destruction of the RAF, not city bombing.

3. Germany was planning Sealion as a really wide river crossing. They should have concentrated on elimiating the RAF, then the Royal Navy, then worried about Sealion.

4. Hitler should have let slip Guderians leash and allowed him to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk. Remeber that both France and the BEF were still reeling from the gains that Guderian had made. One of the reasons that Guderian was so successful was that, unlike the French and British commanders, he did not tie his armored forces to the infantry. That in addition to motorization and mechanization of supporting forces significantly added to the mobility of the formations attacking in the West.

5. Germany should have done a better job at planning Barbaroosa. After their successes in the West, Hitler and the General Staff felt that Barbarossa would be concluded before the onset of the Russian winter. They did not follow the axiom "Plan for the worst and hope for the best." If they did, their troops would have had the winterclothing and replacement parts that were needed to continue Barabarossa through the winter.