Would Hitler Have Succeded if...

[Uncle_Sam]

Voting for Hitler in 1933 didn't make make anyone a Nazi as we know them, people back then couldn't have known what Adolf was going to do.

I disagree :evil: ! All you had to do was read Mein Kampf (I have and it was not easy to do), as his whole plan is pretty much there in black and white. No interpretation or decoding is needed, so the average German should have know what Hitler intended right from the start.

Not everyone had read it, and you can't hold that against them. In retrospect it's easy to say they should have known, but it just isn't that easy in real life.

I am very much with Gunner, the Meine Kampf was best seller, and all bookstores had it in extremely big number.
By 1939 he sold 5.9 million copies!!!!.
I'd say that's a hell of a big number :evil: .
HOW's that not easy to know damn it! :evil:
You have mad man, and mad man does everything he sais! :evil:
Of course every true nazi will say that's not true!

 

[Marksman]

it's alright, he got 4 years, because he taunted me about my serb grandfather and how his "forefathers" should have finished my grampa off. i had to be restrained by 5 men in a pub. i hope he DIES.

I know its off but i must say this,why hit him,for my grandpa who was partizan i would kill that guy in spot if he said that they should finish him off,he(ganddad)was convicted for tratory by Ustase,and sentenced to death.................luckely he was saved by some Partizan platoon in the area,so why hit him,kick the shit out of him and stick a red 5 angle star on his head :lol:

 

[Uncle_Sam]

I don't like red star , but still it's far better than swastika.
I love white stars. :mrgreen:

 

[Doppleganger]

And if Germany had occupied the UK bang goes the UK 'aircraft carrier' strategy. It would have been very difficult for the US to launch any kind of amphibious assault of mainland Europe ala D-Day.

Who says the US would have invaded? I really don't think the US would have bothered with Germany anymore if they had conquered Russia and the UK. We really did not want anything to do with Germany, ok, some Americans, most notably Roosevelt, wanted to get in on the allies side as soon as possible but without Germany declaring war to the US first I don't know that we really would have been able to go to war with Germany, it would have been political suicide for Roosevelt. Luckily Germany turned back to capture Kiev and 300,000 Russian soldiers. And don't forget, Stalin had purged the Soviet Union of many of it best scientist and generals, whether anyone would have seen the weakness in the German attack or not is unknown, but whatever, Hitler lost, thank god, and we now can only ponder as to what would have happened if he had won.

Hi. Well you did assert that you believed the US and UK alone could have defeated Germany, so my reply was aimed at that. In the short to medium term (i.e. within the 1940's) I don't see how that would have been possible without an amphibious landing on mainland Europe by the US. It would have been impossible had Germany defeated the Soviet Union. The Red Army, although it did have enormous economic aid from the US, did more than any other to ensure the defeat of Nazi Germany. Operation Bagration, in which Army Group Centre was destroyed in June 1944 by a HUGE Red Army encirclement, was FAR more significant than D-Day ever was to the defeat of the Wehrmacht. It pitted over 2,000,000 Soviet soldiers in 200 divisions with 6000 tanks and massed artillery against the 34 German divisions of Army Group Centre. This resulted in the death or capture of nearly 350,000 German troops and brought the Soviet forces to the gates of Warsaw in less than 6 months.

75% of the total Wehrmacht casualties were on the Eastern Front, which tells it's own story.

 

[Gunner13]

The Red Army, although it did have enormous economic aid from the US, did more than any other to ensure the defeat of Nazi Germany. Operation Bagration, in which Army Group Centre was destroyed in June 1944 by a HUGE Red Army encirclement, was FAR more significant than D-Day ever was to the defeat of the Wehrmacht. It pitted over 2,000,000 Soviet soldiers in 200 divisions with 6000 tanks and massed artillery against the 34 German divisions of Army Group Centre. This resulted in the death or capture of nearly 350,000 German troops and brought the Soviet forces to the gates of Warsaw in less than 6 months.

75% of the total Wehrmacht casualties were on the Eastern Front, which tells it's own story.

And if Stalin had not beheaded the Red Army in the Great Purge, how much faster would have the Red Army defeated Hitler and how many lives (military and civilian) would have been saved :?: Due to Stalin's bungling, the economic aid, in terms of equipment and material, was vital to sustaining the Red Army and enabling it to win in the East. This was a Combined Operation in a World War - everyone played a part :idea:
I would also like to point out that one of the big reasons the Wehrmacht lost the strategic initiative to the Red Army, which set the stage for Operation Bagration, was the failure of Operation Citadel and the destruction of so many German armored units at Kursk.

His Majesty, Chance, having decided otherwise.....

Also, Could everyone kindly watch their language here :?: :?: :?: This is, I remind you all, an open forum and we have all ages reading what you are posting (including perhaps, your own Mothers!)

 

[Doppleganger]

The Red Army, although it did have enormous economic aid from the US, did more than any other to ensure the defeat of Nazi Germany. Operation Bagration, in which Army Group Centre was destroyed in June 1944 by a HUGE Red Army encirclement, was FAR more significant than D-Day ever was to the defeat of the Wehrmacht. It pitted over 2,000,000 Soviet soldiers in 200 divisions with 6000 tanks and massed artillery against the 34 German divisions of Army Group Centre. This resulted in the death or capture of nearly 350,000 German troops and brought the Soviet forces to the gates of Warsaw in less than 6 months.

75% of the total Wehrmacht casualties were on the Eastern Front, which tells it's own story.

And if Stalin had not beheaded the Red Army in the Great Purge, how much faster would have the Red Army defeated Hitler and how many lives (military and civilian) would have been saved :?: Due to Stalin's bungling, the economic aid, in terms of equipment and material, was vital to sustaining the Red Army and enabling it to win in the East. This was a Combined Operation in a World War - everyone played a part :idea:
I would also like to point out that one of the big reasons the Wehrmacht lost the strategic initiative to the Red Army, which set the stage for Operation Bagration, was the failure of Operation Citadel and the destruction of so many German armored units at Kursk.

His Majesty, Chance, having decided otherwise.....

I don't believe the great purge of the 30's not taking place would have ended the war any quicker. By the time the Soviets had gained the initiative the Red Army was fully recovered and in many ways much better than it had been.

You're correct to say that the failure of Zitadelle was a massive blow to the Wehrmacht. However, IMO the real death knell for Germany in the East was at Stalingrad, where they lost almost all of 6th Army and most of the 4th Panzer Army. Had the Germans simply surrounded the city and moved on (as Manstein and Guderian favoured), who knows what might have happened.

Regards.

 

[Gunner13]

I must respectfully disagree with the above.

How much more effective would the Red Army have been if fully trained leaders were in control form the start of the war and if the Party and NKVD agents inside the Red Army had not disrupted the chain of command so completely :?: :?: Both of these were direct results of the purge of the Red Army's leadership. When the Germans lauched Operation Barbarossa, the commanders of many units were junior officers who had been recently promoted 2 and 3 grades almost overnight and were unready to command the larger formations they found themsleves in charge of. The Soviets were just beginning to rebuild the Red Army when the Axis attacked.

Moreover, even after Stalingrad, which was a tremendous defeat, the Wehrmacht still retained the strategic initiative and did not loose it until after the defeat at Kursk.

 

[Pollux]

The red army in the beginning of barbarossa had almost no radio communications. especiall the tank divisions had no radios.
So it was practically impossible for them to coordinate their tank divisions.
The US delivered over 180000 radio devices. After that the red army was able to start simultane attacks along the whole front.

 

[1217]

Voting for Hitler in 1933 didn't make make anyone a Nazi as we know them, people back then couldn't have known what Adolf was going to do.

I disagree :evil: ! All you had to do was read Mein Kampf (I have and it was not easy to do), as his whole plan is pretty much there in black and white. No interpretation or decoding is needed, so the average German should have know what Hitler intended right from the start.

Not everyone had read it, and you can't hold that against them. In retrospect it's easy to say they should have known, but it just isn't that easy in real life.

I am very much with Gunner, the Meine Kampf was best seller, and all bookstores had it in extremely big number.
By 1939 he sold 5.9 million copies!!!!.
I'd say that's a hell of a big number :evil: .
HOW's that not easy to know damn it! :evil:
You have mad man, and mad man does everything he sais! :evil:
Of course every true nazi will say that's not true!

This I found here:

Hitler dictated the book Mein Kampf during his imprisonment in Landsberg to his later secretary Rudolph Hess, who edited it. Before Hitler's rise to power, the book sold very slowly. Although the NSDAP claimed that it was already a huge seller, documents revealed following World War II proved that to be false. Some historians have speculated that a wider reading might have alerted the world to the dangers Hitler would pose to peace in Europe and to the genocide that he would pursue, now known as the Holocaust.

You see it doesn't matter how many copies were sold by 1939, but how many read it before 1933, and that weren't many. I agree that if people had read it they should have known Hitler was a madman, but you can't blame everyone who voted for him for what he eventually did. Germany wasn't doing well at the time, and people voted for Hitler hoping that would change things for the better. Of course there were people who knew what he was and voted for him anyway, but you can't generalize the entire group that voted for him.

 

[Uncle_Sam]

Well you could see he is a mad man by his look and actions. He made a little civil war. And another thing, Hitler said all those things back on 24th February 1920 in Vienna about anti-semitism, Aryan supremacy, extreme nationalism, contempt for liberal democracy, and the principal of leadership..... What do you say on that? That it was too early or some other not very bright and very dubious reasons? :evil:

 

[1217]

Well you could see he is a mad man by his look and actions. He made a little civil war. And another thing, Hitler said all those things back on 24th February 1920 in Vienna about anti-semitism, Aryan supremacy, extreme nationalism, contempt for liberal democracy, and the principal of leadership..... What do you say on that? That it was too early or some other not very bright and very dubious reasons? :evil:

I'm not reacting to your comments anymore, you don't seem to know how to adress someone that doesn't completely agree with you.

 

[Uncle_Sam]

O.K. , well you wanna quit it because you know you're wrong.
Well I brought up the facts, AND YOU are the one who doesn't wanna listen!

 

[Marksman]

Chill out guys,this isn't "60 minutes" :lol:

 

[Doppleganger]

I must respectfully disagree with the above.

How much more effective would the Red Army have been if fully trained leaders were in control form the start of the war and if the Party and NKVD agents inside the Red Army had not disrupted the chain of command so completely :?: :?: Both of these were direct results of the purge of the Red Army's leadership. When the Germans lauched Operation Barbarossa, the commanders of many units were junior officers who had been recently promoted 2 and 3 grades almost overnight and were unready to command the larger formations they found themsleves in charge of. The Soviets were just beginning to rebuild the Red Army when the Axis attacked.

Moreover, even after Stalingrad, which was a tremendous defeat, the Wehrmacht still retained the strategic initiative and did not loose it until after the defeat at Kursk.

Fair enough, the Red Army would have been more effective had the Stalinist purges not taken place. But it still would not have affected their static positoning along the border and Stalin likely still would have ignored all the evidence being presented to him that Hitler was about to launch a pre-emptive strike. The Red Army's static positioning and the surprise element of attack were 2 main reasons why Barborossa was initially so successful, the other 2 being the destruction of most of the Soviet air force on the ground within the first 24 hours and of course Blitzkrieg itself.

I agree the Red Army might have reacted better but I still think the outcome of the first part of Barbarossa would have been the same. It's often forgotten that the Red Army fought incredibly bravely and put up stubborn resistance at many points that were simply bypassed by the Germans. This still would have happened even had the Red Army had better unit commanders and communication in place. Blitzkrieg was an entirely new concept that the Soviets did not really begin to grasp until later. When they did they learned it well, although still relying on massed numbers and sheer brute power than tactics, which they never truly matched the Germans at.

The reason why Stalingrad was such a turning point was because it repesented a loss of manpower and equipment that the Germans just could not afford. Hitler was well aware that the only way that Germany would beat the Soviet Union was to try and knock them out of the war before their superior manpower became decisive. It was still possible for Germany to sue for a stalemate before they launched Zitadelle but after losing yet more manpower and equipment that they could ill afford to lose it was basically just a matter of time before the Red Army drove into Berlin.

So the difference to me is that before Stalingrad Germany had a chance to win the war in 1942. Before Kursk they only had the chance to settle for a draw.

Keep it coming though. It's good to debate with someone who at least has some good knowledge about this era.

Regards.

 

[SHERMAN]

Im locking this down, and you guys should think about learning some discussion skills.

 

[Mark Conley]

Just putting this in its proper place sherman...then Im re-locking it


Hitler was never elected to anything in germany. read the following, and you'll understand why.

When the Nazis were elected the largest party in the Reichstag (July, 1932), Hindenburg offered Hitler a subordinate position in the cabinet. Hitler held out for the chief post and for sweeping powers. The chancellorship went instead to Kurt von Schleicher , who resigned on Jan. 28, 1933. Amid collapsing parliamentary government and pitched battles between Nazis and Communists, Hindenburg, on the urging of von Papen, called Hitler to be chancellor of a coalition cabinet, refusing him extraordinary powers. Supported by Alfred Hugenberg , Hitler took office on Jan. 30.

Germany's new ruler was a master of Machiavellian politics. Hitler feared plots, and firmly believed in his mission to achieve the supremacy of the so-called Aryan race, which he termed the ³master race.² Having legally come to power, he used brutality and subversion to carry out a ³creeping coup² to transform the state into his dictatorship. He blamed the Communists for a fire in the Reichstag on Feb. 27, and by fanning anti-Communist hysteria the Nazis and Nationalists won a bare majority of Reichstag seats in the elections of Mar. 5. After the Communists had been barred, and amid a display of storm trooper strength, the Reichstag voted to give Hitler dictatorial powers.


He came in by appointment: he seized power when it was given to him by the reichstag. The only time he ran for anything in Germany, such as the presidency, he was defeated.

thats the way it went. The democratic process, controlled by the vote of people, would have kept him out of power had there been one bone of integrity in the officials the people elected. It was the actions of a select few, far from a democratic process, that put him in the position of dictator:

And as far as the notion that he was the product of a democratic process i say nay: his power and rise was the byproduct of fear: Fear from elected officials of his power, and their appeasment attempts to placate him. Its sucks, but thats it. Democracy may have allowed him to survive and fluorish, with the attempts at freedoms from the republic that allowed him to spread his "truths" but it did not put him into power. PM me if you think im wrong.

http://www.crystalinks.com/hitler.html

go here if you want a concise history.