A different outcome to WW2

EmperorNortonII

New Member
ODYSSEUS said:
Hitler clearly underestimated the military power and might of the Soviet Union, despite that his primary strategic fault was that he opened multiple fronts at the same time and he continuously added new enemies to the already existent, no army in the world could be able to sustain a prolongued warfare in multiple fronts for a long time and Hitler simply didnt know where and how to stop his risky and according to others (insane) military venture.
Although he delivered a blow to the mighty British Empire and he bombed London and several major cities of England he couldnt prevail in the air because his generals and especially Goering who was the chief commander of the Luftwafe, didnt bomb the British airports when Luftwaffe had airsuperiority, at the beggining of the war and during Dunkerque evacuation which is considered to be another major mistake on behalf of Goering since most of the British expedition force and many french soldiers managed to escape intact in England.

Therefore the fact is that Hitler didnt have airsuperority and despite the success owed mainly to his U-Boats who indeed were devastating the British convoys his main battle ships could not match the British except Bismark which was sunk by the British a major loss that its concequences became apparent later on in the war, therefore although Hitler delivered major military blows to England nevertheless he never managed to completely defeat and despite this fact he choose to open a new front with the Soviet Union

If we assume that Hitler had prevailed in the war against England he would aparently had faced many losses especially concerning his airforce and his navy.

So he would have less available forces to use in operation Barbarossa and after he had finished operation Barbarossa succesfully his forces would be almost decimated due to the heavy losses that his army would have to endure
after all Russia is a vast country with a big population and the red army was very strong especially concerning its armour units (around 40,000 tanks) and artillery, therefore even with the most optimistic scenario Hitler would face such big losses that it would be almost impossible for him to succesfully continue the war against USA.

We should not also forget the operations in Africa (Africa Corps) and the troops that he defenetely needed in order to protect the occupied territories in Europe, America wouldnt face an immediate danger coming from Germany for many reasons but as paradox as it may sound the main enemy threatening America directly this period of time was Japan.
WHY would a man make so stupid a move as to open up another front against a nation that was currently invovled with a non-aggression pact?

In one word, oil. It is the same reason that Hitler split his forces IN the Soviet union. The Wehrmacht was running out of fuel, and Hitler's blitzkreig was dead without black gold.

This reason, as well as for Japan, is why the Axis powers COULDN'T have won world war 2, period.
 
Last edited:

ODYSSEUS

New Member
i will agree with you that Hitler desperately needed the Caucasian oil as well as the other resources of Russia in order to "feed" his war machine, nevertheless although many people consider the battle of Stalingrand as a turning point of the war i think that the turning point was even earlier when Hitler ordered his generals to capture the Causasian oil fields instead of capturing Moscow which was the primary objective from the beginning of the war and a unique opportunity of Germans to destroy the remainants of the Russian army before they had the opportunity to overcome the initial shock of their losses and reorganize, so by diverting his forces in many different directions and by recalling his armour units from Moscow to the south he terribly weakened his forces and he gave time to the Russians at the same time to reorganize their troops and built their defences something that was one of the primary factors thar costed him the war.

I would like to add also that Hitler was aware of Stalin's military preparation for a future war against Germany so he planned to launch a preemptive attack in order to win the war since he was counting to the surprise factor and to the inferior traing and equipment of the Russian soldiers and initially he was succesfull indeed.

The fact that he mistreated the Soviet populations was a major political mistake and i agree on that too that it was one of the factors that costed him the war.
 
Last edited:

Big-E

Banned Member
EmperorNortonII said:
yes the soviets were formidable but hitler passed up a chance ideal in militay history many russians didint like communist rule they REALLY did not like communist rule so when the invasion of russia began many russian soldiers were willing to surrender or even serve in the german army but the idiot...hitler either had them shot or sent back as slave labor he also passed up many chances like delaying his troops outside of moscow and not atacking right after smolsk but waiting for the russians to flow east...if russia and britain would have fell America would not be atacking anywere near europe THEY NEEDED RUSSIA FOR FODDER AND BRITAIN TO BASE TROOPS and also the germans could have re built there shateered forces while America was trying to deal with the japanese atacking across the pacific
I agree with the first part of your post about why Hitler invaded Russia, it was oil, however if he had decided to negotiate rather than attack he probably could have gotten what he needed. Same holds true for Japan, they both lost b/c they overexpanded.

Your opinion of the Soviet soldier during WWII is rather low. To call them fodder and saying that they surrendered to serve the Nazis is outright insulting! The initial surrenders occured for one reason, they weren't ready for Blitzkrieg. Not b/c of lack of loyalty.:lul
 

EmperorNortonII

New Member
Big-E said:
I agree with the first part of your post about why Hitler invaded Russia, it was oil, however if he had decided to negotiate rather than attack he probably could have gotten what he needed. Same holds true for Japan, they both lost b/c they overexpanded.

Your opinion of the Soviet soldier during WWII is rather low. To call them fodder and saying that they surrendered to serve the Nazis is outright insulting! The initial surrenders occured for one reason, they weren't ready for Blitzkrieg. Not b/c of lack of loyalty.:lul
I DIDN'T POST THAT! Why was that tacked onto my bloody post!

Look at MY grammer and capitalization and punctuation versus that added trash.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
EmperorNortonII said:
I DIDN'T POST THAT! Why was that tacked onto my bloody post!

Look at MY grammer and capitalization and punctuation versus that added trash.
I didn't tack on anything to your post, those were your own words. What does your punctuation and grammer have anything to do with it?

You said and I quote:

"many russians didint like communist rule they REALLY did not like communist rule so when the invasion of russia began many russian soldiers were willing to surrender or even serve in the german army."

"if russia and britain would have fell America would not be atacking anywere near europe THEY NEEDED RUSSIA FOR FODDER"

This trash as you call it came from your keyboard unless the webmaster is playing a joke on you.:eek
 

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
Whoops. I think, I may have screwed up something. Apologies. :( This is what happens when you multi-multi-task. ;)

Please go ahead and delete whatever you didn't write.
 

EmperorNortonII

New Member
Big-E said:
I didn't tack on anything to your post, those were your own words. What does your punctuation and grammer have anything to do with it?

You said and I quote:

"many russians didint like communist rule they REALLY did not like communist rule so when the invasion of russia began many russian soldiers were willing to surrender or even serve in the german army."

"if russia and britain would have fell America would not be atacking anywere near europe THEY NEEDED RUSSIA FOR FODDER"

This trash as you call it came from your keyboard unless the webmaster is playing a joke on you.:eek
It says at the bottom of that post "Last edited by the Webmaster at ..."

I didn't write that.
 

EmperorNortonII

New Member
WebMaster said:
Whoops. I think, I may have screwed up something. Apologies. :( This is what happens when you multi-multi-task. ;)

Please go ahead and delete whatever you didn't write.
One of those days, eh? :p:

No problem, done and done.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
EmperorNortonII said:
It says at the bottom of that post "Last edited by the Webmaster at ..."

I didn't write that.
:haha Only five posts and the admin is already messing with ya!:lol2
 

long live usa

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #50
Big-E said:
I didn't tack on anything to your post, those were your own words. What does your punctuation and grammer have anything to do with it?

You said and I quote:

"many russians didint like communist rule they REALLY did not like communist rule so when the invasion of russia began many russian soldiers were willing to surrender or even serve in the german army."

"if russia and britain would have fell America would not be atacking anywere near europe THEY NEEDED RUSSIA FOR FODDER"

This trash as you call it came from your keyboard unless the webmaster is playing a joke on you.:eek
my god:eek !!!i did type that!not that newbie!!!as you can see on the bottom it sais edited by web master!!!!!!!!!!!strange indeed but i did say that the russians were used for fodder and they were,not an insult to them but the genrals that used them look at some of the last battles when zhukov put massive search lights behind his troops thinking that it would blind the germans and give his troops better vision the russians were wiped out in that atack,but that indeed was my post i dont know what happened but it was not the noob
 

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
ODYSSEUS said:
i will agree with you that Hitler desperately needed the Caucasian oil as well as the other resources of Russia in order to "feed" his war machine, nevertheless although many people consider the battle of Stalingrand as a turning point of the war i think that the turning point was even earlier when Hitler ordered his generals to capture the Causasian oil fields instead of capturing Moscow which was the primary objective from the beginning of the war and a unique opportunity of Germans to destroy the remainants of the Russian army before they had the opportunity to overcome the initial shock of their losses and reorganize, so by diverting his forces in many different directions and by recalling his armour units from Moscow to the south he terribly weakened his forces and he gave time to the Russians at the same time to reorganize their troops and built their defences something that was one of the primary factors thar costed him the war.

I would like to add also that Hitler was aware of Stalin's military preparation for a future war against Germany so he planned to launch a preemptive attack in order to win the war since he was counting to the surprise factor and to the inferior traing and equipment of the Russian soldiers and initially he was succesfull indeed.

The fact that he mistreated the Soviet populations was a major political mistake and i agree on that too that it was one of the factors that costed him the war.
Now lets get back to the topic... :eek:hwell
 

EmperorNortonII

New Member
Ok.

The Axis powers simply could not have won. They did not have the raw materials for a protracted war, especially oil. Allied technologies like radar easily equaled out any other tech advantages the Germans had.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
EmperorNortonII said:
Ok.

The Axis powers simply could not have won. They did not have the raw materials for a protracted war, especially oil. Allied technologies like radar easily equaled out any other tech advantages the Germans had.
If we are sticking to the topic of this thread then an Axis controlled Erasia couldn't have lost if they could hold together there alliance.
 

long live usa

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #56
Big-E said:
If we are sticking to the topic of this thread then an Axis controlled Erasia couldn't have lost if they could hold together there alliance.
yes with out britain or russia holding off the germans America could not have struck at germany!the only way they could get to europe is threw africa if that had not already fallen! and if japan and germany controlled eurasia they would not have been at peace for long they both thought they were the superior race and they both would have been greedy for land
 

long live usa

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #57
Big-E said:
This is too funny... oh yeah, before I forget, shame on you llusa :p:
hmm..i was not talking about the russian soldiers themselves just the genrals that used them as such if i remember right i think it was 20 russian soldiers for one American/british soldier(i think it was 20 to 1 but it could have been 50 to 1)
 

Big-E

Banned Member
long live usa said:
hmm..i was not talking about the russian soldiers themselves just the genrals that used them as such if i remember right i think it was 20 russian soldiers for one American/british soldier(i think it was 20 to 1 but it could have been 50 to 1)
What do you expect to happen after Stalin killed all his good generals.:D
 

long live usa

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #59
Big-E said:
What do you expect to happen after Stalin killed all his good generals.:D
yeah after the war was over and stalin saw zhukov rideing on that white horse he became fiercly jealous and gave him nothing but dead end jobs stalin and hitler were no different nothing but power mad pigs
 

Big-E

Banned Member
long live usa said:
yeah after the war was over and stalin saw zhukov rideing on that white horse he became fiercly jealous and gave him nothing but dead end jobs stalin and hitler were no different nothing but power mad pigs
Zhukov got off easy, during the political purges you were likely to end up in Siberia or better yet found your way to the firing squad.
 
Top