Skip to content


If Germany Nevery Invaded Russia


Moderator: Edpow1


Postby Edpow1 » Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:39 pm

space race was run by the guys who were inventing Germany's missiles and rocket planes, loads of former Nazis were employed by the allies and Russians.


Going back to the original point Hitler's generals all said 1944 for the start of a war, but Britain was rearmming very quickly after it's 10 year plan from 1919 and the Russian purges were starting to turn the army around. By 1936 Britian goes from having no new aircraft designs for 10 years to having 2 world class monoplane fighters and relatively long range bombers, as well as th fastest light bombers in the world - all done in about 3-4 years, so had Hitler waited against the Russians they too may have achieved a similar level of development, though probably more in numbers than quality.

Had Britain been knocked out of the war there would be no springboard for the US to invade Europe from, however Hitler's chances of getting into Britain were not too great, as soon as he got air superiority over southern England and sent across his invasion fleet the entire Home Fleet of England would sail down from Scarpa FLow and wipe out all German shipping, probably desotroying itself in the process from aerial attacks, but crippling the German shipping efforts, stopping all supplies and reinforcements coming through - and which port would the Germans have taken had they held the Royal Navy? Portsmouth was strongly defended and had been rigged with explosives, Dover is too small for a army, London would have been well defended, they had nothing like the Mulberry Harbours that the Allies would use and would have the same issues of needing to take a deepwater port in tact, of which britain, in the south east, has relatively few that would not be open to attack from further sea forces e.g. those in the Med coming north to help.

Logistically Britain was very hard to beat in a straight invasion, Hitler had to cut off supplies of food and oil before could have any chance of sending an army across.

Food for thought

Edd [:p]
User avatar
Edpow1
Herr Oberst
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:58 pm
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Kapten Nordstrom » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:23 pm

How do you guys have all that energy to write all that?
I don't even have the energy to read it.
User avatar
Kapten Nordstrom
Unteroffizier
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Sweden


Postby Dark Angel » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:09 pm

And that is why you will never be able to take part in such well thought out debates, my young friend [;)]

Edd - good points mate and I agree that our being an island has always made us hard to overcome (except romans, normans obviously).

Russia were certainly coming out with good ideas for hardware. Look at the T34. Front armour sloped to deflect shells and wider tracks to overcome the russian winter. Made it better equipped for the conditions and style of combat than the Tiger imo
Dark Angel
Hauptman
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:23 am
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Colonel Mustard » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:18 am

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dark Angel</i>
<br />And that is why you will never be able to take part in such well thought out debates, my young friend [;)]

Edd - good points mate and I agree that our being an island has always made us hard to overcome (except romans, normans obviously).

Russia were certainly coming out with good ideas for hardware. Look at the T34. Front armour sloped to deflect shells and wider tracks to overcome the russian winter. Made it better equipped for the conditions and style of combat than the Tiger imo
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Also the Russian tanks were far easier to fix than the more technicaly complex German alternatives.
Colonel Mustard
Unteroffizier
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:52 am
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Dark Angel » Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:55 pm

Fair enuff. Have never seen a Haynes manual for either [:D]
Dark Angel
Hauptman
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:23 am
Location: United Kingdom


Postby doctor jeep » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:23 am

One of the things historians miss is that while hitler was an appalling military commander, he was astoundingly adept at using military might and victories for political means. In other words, he was a politician, not a military commander, and thus chose weapons based on political/psychological factors and not on their military merit. This is why the German tanks look so darned good: they were designed to as an instrument of policy! from the screams of the stukas, to the crunch of the jackboot, everything was there as means of political and psychological warfare. Even blitzkrieg was developed as a tool to break armies by smashing through the rear, surrounding the enemy, breaking their supply lines etc. Hitler's early successes were mostly due to his genius of viewing the military as a political instrument, and not just as guns and tanks per se.

Unfortunately, when it comes to a daunting objective like the english channel, no amount of posturing and bluster will work. you still have to get your troops over the water and feed and supply them when they are there. For that, you need air superiority and naval supremecy: both of which the Germans couldnt get. The RAF had some great planes, and the royal navy still had an overwhelming advantage of numbers.

I would imagine an English invasion would have initially succeeded, but would probably have become bogged down short of london in fierce resistance (like the bocage) while at the same time having the nightmare of all its supply lines being cut. I can't see anyway that it could have been anything but a disaster for the wehrmacht.

But there was real danger for Britain, and of course the easiest way of securing herself would be to get Hitler to invade Russia. For that reason the British political warfare organisations secretly made tentative peace overtures to Germany, not intending actual peace but to give the impression that a significant number of influential people in the UK elite wanted a negotiated peace. (actually a very illegal thing to do, but hey, national survival is big stakes!).

for that reason, Hitler switched his attacks on airfields to the 'blitz' of the cities (in order to swing public opinion behind the invented peace faction), and he even sent over his deputy, hess, to conduct negotiations. and a month or two later he launched Barbarossa. Hitler, afterall, was an avid student of Haushofer's view of German lebensraum: and Great Britain was largely irrelevent, Russia was the big prize.

Many of Hitler's decisions actually make sense (on their own terms) when examined in its proper historical context with some of the new classified material slowly coming out. Its also amazing how clever and sneaky the British security services were/are.
User avatar
doctor jeep
Ze Fuhrer
Ze Fuhrer
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:02 pm


Postby Gapiro » Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:17 pm

british 2 win
Good argument there...
User avatar
Gapiro
Herr General
 
Posts: 3152
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:01 pm
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Dark Angel » Sat Oct 23, 2004 9:25 pm

It's true we are sneaky as a nation and history bears this out time and again. I think this is one reason why for such a small nation in terms of geographical square footage and population, we have always managed to be a major facot in international policy. Obviously us being an economic centre for hundreds of years also helps.

I agree that Hitler made some very astute decisions but the whole every day logistical side is what let hin down most as his army was often fighting fronts while poorly supplied and an army in this situation will rarely win.
Dark Angel
Hauptman
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:23 am
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Kapten Nordstrom » Sat Oct 23, 2004 9:50 pm

<font size="1">ptsch... Engländer... sie glauben sie alles wissen. </font id="size1">
User avatar
Kapten Nordstrom
Unteroffizier
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Sweden


Postby Dark Angel » Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:11 pm

I don't understand that but did you spill my pint [:(!]
Dark Angel
Hauptman
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:23 am
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Kapten Nordstrom » Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:40 pm

Jawohl[:D]
User avatar
Kapten Nordstrom
Unteroffizier
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Sweden


Postby bruhv » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:22 am

heh, just noticed i'm a mod of a board the subject of which i probably know the least of any member of this great clan


exactly the way it should be ;)
User avatar
bruhv
Oberkommando des Heeres
Oberkommando des Heeres
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2003 2:04 pm
Location: FOAD


Postby ikkebar » Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:08 pm

That's because you are good at making stuff up and history is full of many unknowns.
User avatar
ikkebar
Reichsminister of Vodka and Wine & stuff
 
Posts: 1397
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:03 pm
Location: Molde


Postby TheDuke » Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:08 am

Dark Angel - and again another specatular and very interresting contribution!

As for your point of Hitler being a politicla genius, that indeed is a slant missed over and over again as it was his blustering that won him most operations... like any school yard bully would do.

As for the british stretching peace supposed feelers to re-dicrect Hitler agression, I can't buy into that at all. It was clear from the start that he admired the empirial English and wanted Russia to be his India. Also, keep in mind that there where allot of facist supporters in England with the likes of the BNP (can't remember what they where called back then) as well as in many high circles. On top of this Chamberlain just hadn't the guts for a war (who could blame the man). In any case I think he knew England was un-reachable and playing on a distraction made perfect sense for the peperation of Barbarossa. I also think Hess (who clearly wasn't the full chilling - where any of them for that matter) thought that he could meet with the pro facist english elite to turn the war politically (as it just would not be possible by conventional means).

The best thing that happened to England was Churchhill, a dogmatic, singleminded, force full leader... who had already seen WWI (I have a copy of an amasing photograph where prior WWI himslef and the German Kaiser walk side by side).

Btw, this is one of the best thread I've participated in!

Kapten Nordstrom, du hast voll recht Junge ;-))

The Duke : ))
TheDuke
Volksturm
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:03 pm
Location: Ireland


Postby Kapten Nordstrom » Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:43 pm

Danke mein Herzog. [^]
User avatar
Kapten Nordstrom
Unteroffizier
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Sweden

PreviousNext

Return to Board index

Return to ww2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest