- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WWII buffs: let's talk about Germany's biggest strategic blunder
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:07 am to Spaceman Spiff
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:07 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
And you kid yourself if you think that France was a major power...
Okay, let's leave it as one of the powers that defeated Germany in World War I.
quote:
Had Germany abided by the pact with Russia
Inconceivable, to put it politely.
I ask any rational military strategist to propose a plausible scenario in which Germany defeats France, Great Britain, Russia and the U.S. in a protracted land, sea and air war. I imagine that, given some study of the situation that presented itself in the summer of 1939, few people could construct such a scenario.
1
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:10 am to Jim Rockford
For those who think the Russian invasion was too soon - do you think a peace in the West was possible? Was there any concession Hitler could have realistically given to get a negotiated settlement with Britain?
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:10 am to GREENHEAD22
quote:
It would have been scary to say the least but I still think we would have eventually won bc of the atom bomb, that is assuming we didnt reach a treaty with them or they didnt get one first.
Perhaps, but I think terms may have been more likely than dropping a-bombs, especially if the UK had capitulated early before the official entrance of the US.
This is why I think the Battle of Britain and the inability of the Reich to bring the UK to sue for peace was one of the biggest strategic blunders of the war on the part of Germany.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:12 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Battle of Britain
Germans using a tactical air force for strategic purposes = huge fail.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:13 am to Master of Sinanju
quote:
Was there any concession Hitler could have realistically given to get a negotiated settlement with Britain?
At that point, faith in Hitler's proposals and promises were a tad diminished.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:14 am to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
I think we're basically in agreement here. As I recall, Hitler's original time-table called for war in 1941 or 1942. He got ahead of himself, and the German forces were not completely ready for what turned out to be a massive multi-front war.
I agree.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:16 am to Champagne
I as well, thank God he got too much in a hurry.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:16 am to jimbeam
And no mention of the CAUSE of WWII.....the terms of the treaty of Versailles ?
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:23 am to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Germans using a tactical air force for strategic purposes = huge fail.
VERY important point.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:25 am to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Germans using a tactical air force for strategic purposes = huge fail.
This. Russia was a mistake, but a poster made a great point about waiting on Stalingrad. Since we are playing "ifs," look at what I said earlier:
Britian: They would have eventually surrendered had the Germans finished off the RAF and encircled/blockaded them. Without those staging bases, we wouldn't have had much success, if any.
Russia: What would the outcome have been had they just left them alone? Too many possibilities, but let's say they just abided. I don't see Russia allowing the Allies to stage out of their country, so that would eliminate that possiblity. So, without the threat from Britian (including US airpower from there) and no threat from an eastern front, the ETO would have been almost locked down. I think that peace would have been sued for and on Hitler's terms.
It would have been much, much more difficult to crack. Impossible? No, but a lot more costly. Take into fact that so much more of German resources would be of use to stop an invasion of Italy, etc. I don't see one coming from Normandy because Britain wouldn't have been available. And, had that happened, Japan would have had a much easier time in their conquests. Our resources would have been stretched much thinner due to no help outside of the Australians,etc....
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:26 am to Champagne
quote:
Germans using a tactical air force for strategic purposes = huge fail.
VERY important point.
Stukas and medium bombers aren't going to bring a country to it's knees.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:28 am to tickfawtiger
I see three key moments that could have turned the tide against Hitler and an ultimate German victory:
1. Failure to follow Dunkirk with a decisive and immediate invasion of the British Isles, including use of Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht blitz.
2. The Spain question - Spanish power under Franco was greatly weakened, but it was of great strategic importance due to the British presence on Gibraltar at the mouth of the Mediterranean. Had Hitler shored up Spain as a full Axis partner, it would have pushed/locked all unwanted enemy navies out of the Med.
3. The untimely expansion of fighting on 2 fronts before the British were dispatched. Coupled with the previously mentioned failure to secure the southern oilfields before moving on Moscow.
1. Failure to follow Dunkirk with a decisive and immediate invasion of the British Isles, including use of Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht blitz.
2. The Spain question - Spanish power under Franco was greatly weakened, but it was of great strategic importance due to the British presence on Gibraltar at the mouth of the Mediterranean. Had Hitler shored up Spain as a full Axis partner, it would have pushed/locked all unwanted enemy navies out of the Med.
3. The untimely expansion of fighting on 2 fronts before the British were dispatched. Coupled with the previously mentioned failure to secure the southern oilfields before moving on Moscow.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:30 am to TigerPanzer
quote:
I ask any rational military strategist to propose a plausible scenario in which Germany defeats France, Great Britain, Russia and the U.S. in a protracted land, sea and air war. I imagine that, given some study of the situation that presented itself in the summer of 1939, few people could construct such a scenario.
What I have thought plausible in the past is this: if Germany had more motorized forces to invade Russia on 22 June 41 ( or perhaps a week earlier ), maybe they could have taken enough of Russian land to finish off the Soviet Union by late summer 1942.
IF they could have done this, then perhaps they could have held off the UK/US offensives in the West, thus forcing peace agreement leaving Germany as the dominant power on continental Europe.
But, what happens to Germany once the Atom Bombs begin to fall in August 1945? The US/UK would have had to agree to peace prior to that, because Germany could not have withstood Atom Bombs on Berlin and other major German cities.
But, just as plausible is your point: It could be that Nazi Germany had no chance to win for the reasons you describe.
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 9:32 am
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:33 am to Spaceman Spiff
The Germans needed the Russian resources which really pushed them into Russia. The original plan was to take Ukraine and the oil fields around Baku and cut the rest of Russia off from its biggest resource areas. The synthetic oil and the minor fields they had captured in Europe weren't enough and it was constantly leaving them hamstrung. However once they invaded Russia Hitler changed the plans and over ruled his generals, splitting the forces and sending the majority to Stalingrad.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:33 am to Champagne
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:34 am to Champagne
How come Germany never made any aircraft carriers?
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:35 am to GeauxxxTigers23
I believe they did have plans for a carrier
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:36 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
Britian: They would have eventually surrendered had the Germans finished off the RAF and encircled/blockaded them.
Blockaded Britain with what?
The German Navy suffered pretty heavily after the Norway Campaign. One of the reasons why an invasion of Britain was never executed was because the German Navy wouldn't have been able to sustain itself against the British Navy and the support needed to ferry troops and supplies across the Channel.
So, this could lead us to another German strategic blunder...the Norway Campaign.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:36 am to Champagne
It has the commies on the front and is 150$, ill pass. 
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:40 am to GetCocky11
The German navy was NEVER going to be able to protect invasion forces headed to the UK. The Royal Navy would have done anything to keep that from happening. And without air superiority, the Germans can't keep the Royal Navy at bay.
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News