May 23, 2013, 07:03:37 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Help support TripleA software development. Search me
  Articles  
   Home   Help Login Register Chat  
Loading
Pages: « 1 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: What if hitler died?  (Read 820 times)
Deaths Head 420
The Mini's Mod.
Site Moderator
A&A.org Submarine
*
****
Posts: 671


Sealion will go forth and England will fall !!


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2012, 11:05:48 pm »
0

Hitler Attacked Russia because he thought it was an easy target. The Resources that u speak of were the benefit of success.
The process was not looked at both ways, or if Russia had not been easy.

Hitler hoped he wouldn't have to fight UK and didn't want to either, so he ignored them. Hoping they would go away.

The first time UK bombed a German civilian target was on accident, which Pissed off Adolf, who in return switched bombing targets of civilian nature. Had he not switched, the so called radar chain would have been destroyed along with the RAF

How can u say he did not plan for war so fast, when he KNEW if he invaded Poland, The United Kingdom would have to respond and even if it was just little ol poland, he sure did not wait long to go in the other direction

As for the Air force- After the Bf 109 started rolling off the production lines, the German government spent less $ on Air force Technology and air craft design. Because they (Germany) had at that time the best land based Military aircraft available in the world, so they cut the defense budget. Only after they realized the capabilities of Foreign Aircraft did they ramp up their Defense Spending on the Luftwaffe.

Yes Britain can move airfields North, but that also positions them far away from other military targets, ie radar chain, which could be systematically taken out, Push the radar further in to UK, means UK can no longer see German AF Marshaling above France, instead too indiscriminately bomb towns and Cities is what hitler ordered. 
Now Bombing Factories in a city is not the same thing as Bombing Houses in a city. But hitler bombed both instead of concentrating is power on the one that could most impact his military. Sure trying to diminish ones enemies morale can help, But the last time i checked, morale doesn't shoot down planes.

As for the the STG 44, Watch Weaponology, history of the assault rifle
An episode of History of the Gun also mentions the STG 44 and Adolfs disliking of the gun. In fact the gun was put into production before it was officially approved by adolf.  I also remember hearing some where, when Asked what his troops attacking stalingrad needed the most, the generals reply was more STG 44's

How did hitler see bombing as a political weapon, Blitzkrieg was completely based off of Stukas providing close air support for ground units.

What I don't understand is how one could even think Hitler was not evil, and it appears that u don't.
He may have done good things and a bunch to boot, but he also allowed the Halocaust. To extinguish a group of people because they are different in on way or another, is evil. to extinguish Human life in a meaningless way, is evil. weather you do it 1 time, or 8 million times, it is still evil.

Too make a long story short. Hitler Signed the checks, He was the man in charge, so He gets the blame, all of it. Reguardless of who technically made the decision.
 

Logged
Bunnies P Wrath
A&A.org Bomber
*****
Posts: 2142


Fear the Wrath of P


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: April 22, 2012, 07:43:57 am »
0

@Deaths Head 420:  Your understanding of WWII history is so completely different to mine, your conclusions and reasoning have almost zero relevance to what I wrote.  It seems to me that dialogue in detail between us is useless as long as our premises differ so wildly.

Apart from the points on which we so completely disagree that I consider not worth discussing, though, you brought up a few specific points that I will address.

1.  How can I say Hitler did not plan for war so fast?  Germany's pre-war military and political plans make it clear.  As far as military plans, the interruption of Plan Z and study of Kreigsmarine buildup in prewar years alone supports my view.  As for political plans, before the invasion of Poland, Hitler was concerned with consequent possible conflict with Britain, but Ribbentrop assured him it would not happen.  Hitler's displeasure with the early entry of Britain and France into war was made evident with his angry retort "Now what?" to Ribbentrop upon learning of it.

Something to remember also in terms of politics was Hitler's view of a German-Italian-British alliance as presented in Mein Kampf.  Certainly, in the prewar years, Hitler viewed Britain as an adversary.  But considering the past history of the British Empire, and the writings of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Hitler had at least some reason to believe that the British Empire would end up sympathetic to his cause.  (Almost completely wrong of course.  But this is far more visible in hindsight, particularly since we know (after the fact, mind you) that Churchill would replace Chamberlain).

2.  Regarding your questioning regarding Hitler seeing bombing as a STRATEGIC (not strictly "political" weapon), Douhet and Mitchell's theory, which was widely accepted by both Axis and Allies, was that the means of production and civilian will to resist could be broken by bombing; that is, the use of bombing to achieve not only military but also political goals.  Clearly Hitler's strategy was influenced by this school of thought, as he switched from military to civilian targets during the Blitz.  It would have supported the argument that Hitler saw bombing in terms of tactics and operations had he continued orders for the Luftwaffe to hit military targets, but he didn't.

Why break Britain's morale?  Your argument is that morale doesn't shoot down planes.  My argument is Vietnam, Afghanistan, take your pick of any number of real world examples.  Granted, IF Germany had kept pounding military targets instead of civilian ones, the Allies MIGHT have been in trouble, but that is a position held by historians in RETROSPECT after the fact - and those historians had access to Allied records, which Hitler obviously did not.

Regarding the failure of the Axis to have long-range bombers for use against Britain and Moscow when needed, again, I say it is reasonable that Hitler did not anticipate things would develop in those regions as they did.

Regarding the use of bombers in blitzkrieg - so what?  Your whole issue in the first place was regarding Hitler's switching between military and civilian targets during the Blitz, to which I consider I reasonably and correctly replied that Hitler's reasons in doing so were that he viewed bombing in that situation best used strategically rather than at tactical or operations level, which I have further detailed above.

3.  You state that Hitler's death camps were meaningless.  On the contrary.  First, the Holocaust was organized by Himmler and Heydrich; the existence of any direct order from Hitler authorizing the killings has not yet been made known to the public.  Second, although Hitler spoke openly against Jews, and had a history of racist thought, this is understandable considering the popularity at the time of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".  Understanding of the details, background, and history of reception of that document, as well as the fact that Hitler proclaimed it authentic, is vital to making sense of what happened, and with that perspective, "meaningless" hardly applies.

--

As I wrote previously, there are good and sound reasons for attempting to understand the past, rather than simply dismissing parts of it as "insane" or "evil".  Mere insistence that your views are correct will not change my views.  Should you present evidence that Hitler consistently acted irrationally, I would of course reconsider.  All the evidence you have provided to support that view to this point, though, either relies upon Hitler having information he did not actually have, or does not consider the actions of others than Hitler that could have caused him to act as he did.  That is why I do not consider your evidence at all compelling.  I am not looking for absolute proof, but I find a complete lack of even a single real point in favor of your argument.

Your insistence that "a long story should be made short" is exactly the same sort of reasoning that led to the Holocaust.  That is, a lack of reasoning, a lack of research, a lack of willingness to invest time in either, and simple constant dogmatic insistence upon a single point.  But then, that sort of reasoning is hardly unique.  It is common practice among politicians and people in general, so I can quite understand that you would take exception to my distaste of such practice, and consider my insistence on understanding cause and effect unreasonable, and in fact distasteful.

--

I am not so much a relativist as to classify insanity and evil as pure abstractions.  (In fact, I consider most of the population to be in some degree insane, particularly because of the common practice of insistence on what I consider to be narrow-minded views for what I consider to be insufficient reasons.  But I digress.)

For an illustration of what I consider "real" insanity and evil, Albert Fish is a far better example than Adolf Hitler.  Albert Fish was a pedophile and cannibal; the following link contains graphic and disturbing details.  But readers will have a better understanding of what I consider insanity to be - namely, not merely consistent but slight divergence with social norms, nor wild divergence with social norms under unusual or extreme circumstances, ut consistent AND wild divergence of social norms to the extent that nothing other than insanity, by definition, could be the case.

(Please do not read the following if you are sickened or offended by the thought of killing and eating children.  Since that SHOULD be everyone, nobody should click this link . . .)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish
Logged
Gargantua
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 10566


AA.org's Villain


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 22, 2012, 07:41:49 pm »
0

Quote
I also remember hearing some where, when Asked what his troops attacking stalingrad needed the most, the generals reply was more STG 44's

Are you on DRUGS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

The battle of Stalingrad was OVER in February 1943.  Soviet Liberation 

German Occupation Began in Late Summer/Fall 42. (THEY CONQUERED 90% of THE CITY, leaving just a sliver on the east of the Volga - and attempted to defend it.)


STG 44's didn't even arrive until late 43.  You won't even find Stalingrad mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
Logged
KurtGodel7
A&A.org Submarine
****
Posts: 727



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2012, 08:58:16 pm »
0

This is turning out to be a thread well worth reading! I'd like to thank Death's Head and Bunnies P Wrath for the time they've invested into their posts.

Death's Head's post prompted me to do a little reading about the STG 44. Death's Head was correct: "Development [of the assault rifle] temporarily came to halt when Hitler suspended all new rifle programs due to administrative infighting within the Third Reich." Hitler "strongly disagreed with the use of the new ammunition," perhaps because it's easier to manufacture and distribute one ammunition type than many different types. However, "once Hitler was given a chance to see and test-fire the MP 44, he was impressed and gave it the title Sturmgewehr."

Edit: I wrote the above before reading Gargantua's most recent post. Gargantua is correct that the assault rifle was not used at Stalingrad. But other than the reference to Stalingrad, Death's Head seems to have correctly remembered the quote.

******
In July 1944, at a meeting of the various army heads about the Eastern Front, when Hitler asked what they needed, a general exclaimed, "More of these new rifles!".
******

Leading up to WWII, one bone of contention between Germany and the Western democracies was Czechoslovakia. In 1935, Czechoslovakia had signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union. In 1938, Hitler took the opportunity to annex Czechoslovakia, both to provide Germany with some of the industrial strength it would need to resist later threats, and to send a message to any other Eastern European nations which might otherwise have felt tempted to side with the Soviet Union in its cold war against Germany. Finally, German military planners feared the prospect of a Soviet invasion of Germany launched from Czech soil. The annexation secured Germany from that threat. However, it damaged the prestige of Britain and of Chamberlain. In 1939, the main apparent goal of Chamberlain's foreign policy was to reclaim that prestige, even if it meant war. It is not clear what plan, if any, he had to prevent that war from resulting in Soviet occupation of most of Europe.

In 1939, Chamberlain cooperated with France's policy of making false promises to Poland. Daladier had promised Poland that, if Germany attacked Poland, France would launch a general invasion of Germany. Polish leaders mistakenly believed Daladier's promises; which is why Poland adopted an anti-German foreign policy in '39. Unknown to the Polish, actual French war plans involved remaining on the defensive, behind the Maginot Line.  

Combined Anglo-French military spending had exceeded Germany's in '39. The extremely anti-German foreign policies adopted by Britain and France in '39 had also not gone unnoticed by Hitler. Those policies convinced him that war with the Western democracies was unavoidable, however much he might have wanted to avoid it. That being the case, he felt it was better to strike relatively soon, while force levels were still relatively balanced. (According to historian John Toland, Hitler had been informed by a German government official that the Poles were killing ethnic Germans in the German territory they occupied. That reported killing was another reason for Hitler's decision to invade Poland.)

After Hitler conquered Poland, he offered a peace treaty to Britain and France. They both refused. After conquering France, Hitler offered a peace treaty to Britain. The British refused. In 1940, Britain produced more military aircraft than did Germany. In addition, the U.S. sent large numbers of military aircraft to Britain. Plans had been made to astronomically expand American military aircraft production; with half that production getting sent to Britain. All this was known, at least in a general sense, to German military planners.

For anyone who hasn't already done so, I strongly recommend Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction.. The Times (London) called it, "A magnificent demonstration of the explanatory power of economic history." The Financial Times described it as "Masterful . . . Tooze has added his name to the roll call of top-class scholars of Nazism." Below is a synopsis of some of the points Tooze made.
 
As 1940 came to a close, German military planners believed that, unless they did something to change the equation in Germany's favor, Germany would ultimately be doomed by the Anglo-American air production effort directed against it. Another concern was food. The British did not allow food to pass through their naval blockade against Germany. Germany was a food deficit nation, as were the nations of Western Europe it had conquered. Germany's leaders were alarmed by the way the British food blockade had caused their grain reserves to plummet during 1940.

Hitler, along with many or most German military planners, believed the solutions to these problems could be found in the east. Conquering a large portion of the Soviet Union would provide Germany with the labor force and industrial capacity with which to defend its cities from the Anglo-American bombing effort, the oil and other raw materials its war effort required, and the food with which to prevent starvation in Western Europe. However, most of the Soviet territory to be conquered also ran at a food deficit. The German conquest would not eliminate the starvation which would otherwise have been caused by the food blockade. It would merely transfer the starvation out of Western Europe and into formerly Soviet territory. If anything, the overall magnitude of the starvation problem would be greater than it otherwise had been.

Another reason for invading the Soviet Union was that the Red Army was clearly unprepared for war in 1940, as shown by its dismal performance when it invaded Finland. Hitler knew the Red Army's problems would be corrected eventually, and felt it made sense to invade before they were. Hitler also believed that Stalin would invade Germany once he felt the time was right. (While Tooze does not address whether Hitler's belief on this point was accurate, evidence from other sources indicates it may well have been.)

In 1941, the German Army conquered large portions of Soviet territory, and achieved a better than 10:1 exchange ratio against the Red Army. But in 1942, the Soviet Union produced three to four times as many weapons as Germany in every major land category; and even produced nearly twice as many military aircraft as Germany. In addition, the Red Army became vastly larger than its German counterpart. German military planners had expected the Red Army to have 200 divisions. By the fall of '41, it consisted of over 600 divisions. And it proceeded to recruit 500,000 men a month for most of the rest of the war. The sheer scale of the Soviet war effort came as a shock not just to Hitler, but to the German military generally.

As the war went on, Germany began taking the food it needed from the Polish and Soviet territory it occupied. This caused millions of people to starve in those territories. In addition, widespread starvation occurred among Soviet POWs. Those POWs had been put to work in German factories to build weapons for the war. That is probably the main reason why Hitler ordered that they be fed. However, the man tasked with feeding them lacked the food with which to feed both them and the German people. The Nazis remembered the starvation of Germany's civilian population caused by the British food blockade of WWI. They blamed that starvation for Germany's surrender in 1918; and were determined not to make the same mistake twice. The fear of another November 1918, in combination with their own ideology, explains why the German people received a significantly higher food priority than Soviet POWs. The Nazi ideology also explains why, in the face of famine conditions, it was felt necessary to reduce Jewish caloric consumption to zero through starvation and extermination camps.

Another thing Tooze described was how Germany's lack of oil had affected its military options. Leading up to WWII, Hitler had insisted on the construction of a large synthetic oil refinery. He was told such a refinery was impossible due to economic realities. However, those who had told Hitler this had underestimated Hitler's "sheer bloody-mindedness." The synthetic oil refinery was built, and provided a portion of the oil Germany needed. The Romanian oilfields provided a larger portion. Despite this, Germany was still oil-poor. This meant that supplying its army in the field would be done mostly via coal and animal power. A coal-powered train would move supplies most of the way to front line troops, and horses would carry them the rest of the way. This supply system made it difficult for the German Army to achieve rapid advances over large areas, because it took time to build new rail lines. Germany had enough oil and enough military trucks to supplement this system with motor transport. But the faster the German Army advanced, the worse its supply situation would become. One of the reasons its attack on Moscow failed in late '41 was because its soldiers had outrun their (weak) supply lines, and lacked the bullets, artillery ammunition, winter uniforms, and food they required to remain an optimal fighting force. With more oil Germany could have solved problems like this, which is one reason why Hitler wanted to conquer the Caucasus oilfields in 1942. The conquest of Caucasus would also have improved Germany's food situation, and would have significantly added to its industrial capacity.

Thus ends the synopsis of Tooze's work. But before I end this post, I'd like to throw in a tidbit about Goering. Goering had joined the Nazi Party back in its early days. He was a WWI ace, and his decision to join may have added desperately-needed credibility to that small party. It's possible that Goering's decision to stand by Hitler in those early years may help explain why he was not later dismissed due to sheer incompetence and braggadocio.

In 1940, there was a question about whether the German Army should attack the fleeing British force in France. Goering said that no attack need be launched, and promised he could destroy the British Expeditionary Force from the air. Instead, that force escaped at Dunkirk. (Hitler was uneager to engage that force in the first place because he felt the German Army's strength needed to be conserved for the second stage of the war against France.) Also in 1940, Goering greatly reduced the number of engineers allocated to the development of a German jet.

In late '42, a large portion of the German Army had been encircled at Stalingrad. Goering promised that he could supply the encircled soldiers by air. The Stalingrad force would remain in place until the rest of Army Group South could push eastwards to reconnect with it. Relying on Goering's promise, Hitler decided to keep the Stalingrad force in place. The Stalingrad force slowly starved, and desperately lacked ammunition. Its combat value slowly withered away due to lack of adequate supplies.

Goering also lied to Hitler about the performance of at least one experimental weapon. Goering felt Hitler placed too much faith in new technology, and needed to be steered toward tried and true weapons systems instead. Goering played a direct role in the most notable defeats Germany suffered in the war: Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, Stalingrad, the late war Allied bombing effort against German cities. Germany probably would not have won WWII even with a competent head of the Luftwaffe. But it would have put up a much better fight!
« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 09:17:13 pm by KurtGodel7 » Logged
Bunnies P Wrath
A&A.org Bomber
*****
Posts: 2142


Fear the Wrath of P


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: April 22, 2012, 09:27:14 pm »
0

Are you on DRUGS?
Uhm, I won't answer any questions without my lawyer present.   wink

I regard most television documentaries as highly entertaining, but at least sometimes containing information of dubious reliability.  They are there to entertain and inform, and sometimes propagandize, not simply inform.

It is in stacks of dry dusty books that one finds interesting facts, and hot lonely librarians.   evil  The internet also does decently as a search tool, although you often have to have a good idea of what you are looking for.  (For example, you won't typically find mention of "The Protocols of Zion" in any discussion of the Holocaust, which is, well, really bad.)

My understanding of the history of the StG 44 is that production of the gun itself was generally approved of by Hitler.

The MKb 42, FG 42, and MP43 were the predecessors.  I think the referred to "stoppage of the StG 44 by Hitler" (to paraphrase an earlier post) referred to the real infighting in Germany over the design and production of these various predecessor guns.  To sum up, there were various plans for various assault rifles / machine guns, but there was a lot of bureaucratic infighting.  Rather than allowing them to continue arguing to no positive end, Hitler at various points told them to shut up and shut down.

So naturally there was some delay in StG 44 production, but saying Hitler made a stupid decision, or that he completely lacked vision, is like yelling at your cat after you burn your toast.  It's not the cat's fault, even if it was in the room at the time.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

2013 Support Drive
Support Level
Forum Username
Buy Axis & Allies
  • Axis & Allies 1942 [Amazon]
  • A&A Pacific 1940 [Amazon]
  • A&A Europe 1940 [FMG]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • A&A D-Day [Amazon]
  • A&A Battle of the Bulge [Amazon]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • WWII Themed Combat Dice [FMG]


Axis and Allies.org Official Sponsor: Field Marshal Games
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!