How could Germany have won the war?


  • @BJCard:

    @Eggman:

    @Zooey72:

    You will be hard pressed to find examples in history where the winners of the war give power to the people instead of seizing it themselves.  George Washington was not King George.  He gave up power peacefully.

    I totally understand your point, but you’re making the mistake of looking at the Founding Fathers with rose-colored glasses.  They also believed that only certain classes of people should be in charge as the common man was too ignorant to be trusted with a full voice in government.  The US Constitution was a huge step forward but most of the FFs would have been horrified at the idea of implementing a more fuller democracy such as we have now.

    Well, judging by the general political IQ of the average American, the founding fathers were probably right.

    Since politics are forbidden I will refrain from what I really think and talk about the broad instead of the specifics.  The one thing that has not changed, nor will ever change despite societies or tech changes is that the less the government has to with our individual lives the better - or at least that is what our founders thought was the core belief of what the founders wanted.  The Constitution is a set of NEGATIVE rights imposed on the government to keep it in check and to not become a tyranny.  At BEST government can be like a harry chrisna (no clue how they spell it), well meaning, thinks it knows everything, truly wants to help you, but is annoying and any help you get you really shouldn’t want.  At worst government is like any tyranny going make 1000s of years.

    I do not believe the rose colored glasses thing.  Again, this is an attempt to demean the fathers by not making them super human King Solomns.  Given the time they were in they were well ahead of themselves.  They broadened the electorate to unheard of levels.

    and honestly, I do agree with this:

    Well, judging by the general political IQ of the average American, the founding fathers were probably right.

    The idea that you are doing something wrong, or you are a bad person because you don’t vote is absurd.  Some people are just too stupid to vote and their voice should not be heard.  A general rule of thumb is if you can’t name the three branches of government, but you can name all of the Kardashians, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    Reminds me of something I saw on the “Man Show”.  They went around getting women to sign a petition to end “Women’s sufferage”.  They got over 100 sigs before someone said “Hey, doesn’t that give me the right to vote?”

    Anyone who signed that should not be allowed to vote (by their own admission).


  • It would not be an easy walk in into Leningrad…


  • the topic went in a weird direction, to  bring it back I would like to see someone argue the point I made with how Germany could have won the war.

    If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them?  I think Dunkirk would not have succeeded in 40 and England would have no army, and in 41 Russia would have fallen before winter.  Even if it didn’t fall I am sure Moscow would have fallen, and the following spring offensive would have ended the war in the East.

    The difference between this and other ‘miracle weapons’ is that an assault weapon is practical.  Jets and really big tanks take up too many resources even if they had been produced earlier or in greater numbers.  Ammunition would have been a factor, but that would have been it.

    Imagine it, an army equipped with assault rifles opposed by armies who are equipped with what is basicaly now a hunting rifle.

    Fortunately for the world Hitler didn’t like the concept until it was too late.


  • It is amazing that in 1941 the Germans attempted to conquer Russia with horse drawn supplies and a bolt action rifle as the primary infantry weapon. More amazing they came so close to winning.


  • @Zooey72:

    If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them?Â

    Imagine it, an army equipped with assault rifles opposed by armies who are equipped with what is basicaly now a hunting rifle.

    You may got a valid point. In the Battle of Koniggratz in 1866 the Prussians used modern Dreyes-rifles, and won the battle most because of this. The Austrians used the old rifles. The Austrians lost 45 000 men while the Prussians lost only 9 000 men. Only 4 years later the Prussians crushed France too in the 1870/71 war. Lucky too us Hitler was obsessed with heavy tanks and jet aircrafts


  • @Zooey72:

    the topic went in a weird direction, to  bring it back I would like to see someone argue the point I made with how Germany could have won the war.

    If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them?  I think Dunkirk would not have succeeded in 40 and England would have no army, and in 41 Russia would have fallen before winter.  Even if it didn’t fall I am sure Moscow would have fallen, and the following spring offensive would have ended the war in the East.

    The difference between this and other ‘miracle weapons’ is that an assault weapon is practical.  Jets and really big tanks take up too many resources even if they had been produced earlier or in greater numbers.  Ammunition would have been a factor, but that would have been it.

    Imagine it, an army equipped with assault rifles opposed by armies who are equipped with what is basicaly now a hunting rifle.

    Fortunately for the world Hitler didn’t like the concept until it was too late.Â

    …and how would you have fought with a 39 Sturmgewehr in urban terrain and also modified the combat tactics with in? Can you please explain how you see it? Could have been a FG 42 or a MG 42 in greater nbrs a better benefit in 39 or `40 to the combat style of the Wehrmacht?


  • @Zooey72:

    If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them?  I think Dunkirk would not have succeeded in 40 and England would have no armyÂ

    The Dunkirk evacuation succeeded because Hitler’s “stop order” halted the advance of the German forces for several days at a crucial moment of their offensive in the west, instead of allowing them to continue their pursuit of the retreating Allied forces.  I don’t think it would have made much difference if German infantrymen had had a different personal firearm at that time because the German army didn’t attack the British during those critical days; it simply consolidated its position and allowed the Luftwaffe to try to destroy the Allied position at Dunkirk on its own.


  • @CWO:

    @Zooey72:

    If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them?�  I think Dunkirk would not have succeeded in 40 and England would have no army�

    The Dunkirk evacuation succeeded because Hitler’s “stop order” halted the advance of the German forces for several days at a crucial moment of their offensive in the west, instead of allowing them to continue their pursuit of the retreating Allied forces.  I don’t think it would have made much difference if German infantrymen had had a different personal firearm at that time because the German army didn’t attack the British during those critical days; it simply consolidated its position and allowed the Luftwaffe to try to destroy the Allied position at Dunkirk on its own.

    They didn’t attack because they did not have tank support (they had been run into the ground blitzing through France and needed repair and the troops rest).  While it is true that the German infantry had not completely caught up to the tanks, the largest reason for the pause was lack of armor.  I contend that they would not have needed armor support if the standard German infantryman was equipped with an assault rifle.  The British armor was out of fuel and abandon.  This would have been a straight up infantry fight with the Germans having air dominance and 88s shelling them.

    While it may have taken some getting used to, the tactics of having assault rifles would have evolved rather quickly. That is proven by how quickly they did evolve in 44 when the sturmgewher did go into circulation.  The question wasn’t “how do we use this thing”, it was “how can we get more?”


  • @Zooey72:

    @Kreuzfeld:

    @Zooey72:

    I think it is more of a societal thing.  One of the reasons I am proud to be an American is that we TOOK our freedom from England when England was (close to) at its strongest.  You look around the world and you see these third world countries bitching and moaning about “its not our fault, we were a colony”!  Boo frigg’n hoo.  So were we, and instead of being given our freedom (which India was, if you believe Ghandi did it I have a bridge to sell you), we took it.  Taking freedom is much different than having it given to you.  Look around the world at the old colonies, most of them are run now dictators and are poor.  Very few took their freedom, most got it because we pressured England to drop its colonies after the war (which they had to do, or no Marshall plan $).

    We have a Constitution that allows us to have weapons.  That was not put in there so people could hunt or defend themselves against muggers.  It was put in there so that the government does not have a monopoly on force.

    You make it sound like the americans took it without help, from a british empire who had nothing else to do. The fact is that the american revolution would probably not have succeded if this was the case. The british war in india got most of the british resouces, and the french (the worlds strongest military power on land at the time), combined with the spansih and the dutch helped a great deal. In fact, there are very few wars of freedom (after 1500) that have won without help from an outside power helping, and usually they need to declare war to do enough. The nations you are belitteling is exactly the nations that would never get aid for their revolutionary and rebellious wars, and exactly the nations that got their freedom with the least help from an outside power. The indians did it by making sure that it would be too costly for the british to stay there.

    When it comes to the second amendment, don’t be naive, the government does have monopoly on force, there is no way a rebellion would work, taliban militias is better armed than the american civilian population.

    The one way to ensure (IMO) that the government cannot use their army against the civilan population is to have a conscripted army, if every person have served, then every member of the army thinks of himself as a member of the population and massive nonviolent protests will turn the army against the government. It is less violent, and has a greater chance of success. The moment the army is a professional army, thinking of themselves as outside the population, working for a salery, then you are in trouble as a democracy.

    EDIT: forgive my harsh tone, it is not meant that way

    That’s nuts.  I do not own a gun, but if they were to ever try and take them away I would get one and would be willing to die shooting whoever came to my door trying to take it away.  The second amendment does not give me the right to do that, it makes it an OBLIGATION.  Crunch the numbers.  If 1 percent of US citizens (and it is much higher than that) own a gun that makes 3 million gun owners.  Granted the military is more organized, but if you think they can take out 3 million gun owners easily you are crazy.  Not to mention, the people who would be in charge of taking those guns away are more than likely gun owners themselves.  If you want to argue whether we could fight our military ok, but one thing that is not open to argument is the intent the founders had by giving us the second.  I do not have the right to own a gun to shoot a deer or defend against a mugger.

    I love when people try to compare Vietanm to our Revolution.  You remember the mass slayings after we won?  The re-education camps?  The brutal crack down by the government?  Not to mention the great standard of living that Vietnam enjoys to this day!  The fight was to minimize government as much as possible.  American exceptionalism is just that - EXCEPTIONAL!  You will be hard pressed to find examples in history where the winners of the war give power to the people instead of seizing it themselves.  George Washington was not King George.  He gave up power peacefully.

    As far as our ability to beat the British, it also amuses me that Vietnam was unwinnable… but the only reason we won our independence is because the British just weren’t all that much into it.  That being said, the french were not going to help us until they saw that we had a good chance of winning.  I won’t dispute the French helped, but we did most of the fighting.  The fact we won a diplomatic victory getting the French to aid us (and the only reason they helped us was to stick it to the British, there was no altruistic reason behind it).  With that logic I guess England didn’t win the battle of Britian - We did!.  W/o our aid even Churchill acknowledged England would have fallen.  But I defy you to find someone who lived through the blitz and tell them that.

    The fact of the matter is that when a war takes place people are going to take sides, and the decision of what side a country should take should always be in was in that countries own best interest.  The balance of power in the world shifted quite a bit after we won our independence (in France’s favor).

    Plain and simple, diplomacy is a part of war just as much as guns and butter.

    Well, trying to keep this civil, but I want to make some counterpoints.

    I assume about 200 million americans would be able to arm themselves, however it would make little difference if a revolution was needed. If the right every man had was for fighting the government, then every man should be allowed MUCH heavier weapons than they currently have. you need heavy artillery, fighters, bombs, tanks, machine guns etc. Just look at how good various millitias are doing around the world without these heavy weapons.

    There is too many details in the american revolution to argue if the really gave power to the people or if this where victories that where won later, every white man could not even vote until the late 1800s. But this is besides the point.

    When you compare Vietnam with american revolution, they are supprisingly similar in some ways, Vietkong could never have won without help from northvietnam, china and ussr, those weapons and supplies where vital.

    The differences between the American revolution are also important. Perhaps the main reason Vietnam was “unwinnable” was actually america itself. Vietnam was lost because of American politics, USA decided to withdraw. If USA had been willing to do mass exterminations or been of the same ethnicity as the Vietnamese, the outcome might have been quite different.

    I also sense you are deliberately trying to misinterpret me, I did in no way say that the french gave americans their freedom, to say that would be just as ridiculously stupid as saying USA took it 100% on its own, without any outside help.

    The point I was making is that the only revolutions and major reforms that have succeeded without any major outside help has been the nonviolent ones. This is because The oppressor usually HAS the monopoly on force, and if force is used against them they will get away with responding with MUCH more force.


  • Well, if an armed revolution ever happened in the US, albeit extremely unlikely, I would suppose that various military units would be fractured as well, so both sides would have military assets.  Heck, the state of Texas would probably secede and go on their own.

    I know that when I was stationed on a US Submarine and the order was to fire tomahawks at Waikiki I would shut the Reactor down (fairly easy to do safely if you know where to go).  No power = no Submarine.  I would imagine it would be tough to get an all-volunteer force to fight other Americans in the way they are doing in Syria right now.  Maybe individual units, but the US military is so large that it would be impossible to get them all to cooperate; I don’t care who you are.  Even in Syria you have defections from the Army to the “Free Syrian Army.”

    Secondly, you don’t have to have tons of heavy weapons to succeed in revolutions, just the right people at the right places.


  • @BJCard:

      Heck, the state of Texas would probably secede and go on their own.

    Yes, Sir.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    @BJCard:

    Well, if an armed revolution ever happened in the US, albeit extremely unlikely, I would suppose that various military units would be fractured as well, so both sides would have military assets.  Heck, the state of Texas would probably secede and go on their own.

    I know that when I was stationed on a US Submarine and the order was to fire tomahawks at Waikiki I would shut the Reactor down (fairly easy to do safely if you know where to go).  No power = no Submarine.  I would imagine it would be tough to get an all-volunteer force to fight other Americans in the way they are doing in Syria right now.  Maybe individual units, but the US military is so large that it would be impossible to get them all to cooperate; I don’t care who you are.  Even in Syria you have defections from the Army to the “Free Syrian Army.”

    Secondly, you don’t have to have tons of heavy weapons to succeed in revolutions, just the right people at the right places.Â

    Well stated,

    Alot of times fracturing occurs as one branch of government begins to confront the other.

    For example,

    An arizona Farmer is going to have his land arbitrarily, and wrongfully taken away from him by the federal government.  It will leave him destitute.

    The government orders the local sheriff to throw the farmer off of his land.  The Sheriff refuses, and states publically that the land grab is wrong.

    The federal government then issues a warrant for the Sherrif on the grounds of “obstruction of the law”, sending in ATF/FBI to do the job.

    The Sheriff stands his ground with the support of his force, and the local people support their duly elected sheriff, and stand their ground too…

    One branch vs the other, and once the blood letting starts, it only gets worse.  Revolution.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Looking back at the last 300 years of human history

    Revolutions aren’t an “if”, but more of a “when”.

    A peaceful DC protest turns violent on a large enough scale, that say… saw the white-house under threat, would result in a secret service crackdown like you’ve never seen before.

    Probably to go so far as disabling cellphones/internet/power in the area.  Which in turn would only make things worse, and get more people out of their homes and into the streets.

    Now we have a problem.


  • @Gargantua:

    @BJCard:

    Well, if an armed revolution ever happened in the US, albeit extremely unlikely, I would suppose that various military units would be fractured as well, so both sides would have military assets.�  Heck, the state of Texas would probably secede and go on their own.

    I know that when I was stationed on a US Submarine and the order was to fire tomahawks at Waikiki I would shut the Reactor down (fairly easy to do safely if you know where to go).�  No power = no Submarine.�  I would imagine it would be tough to get an all-volunteer force to fight other Americans in the way they are doing in Syria right now.�  Maybe individual units, but the US military is so large that it would be impossible to get them all to cooperate; I don’t care who you are.�  Even in Syria you have defections from the Army to the “Free Syrian Army.”

    Secondly, you don’t have to have tons of heavy weapons to succeed in revolutions, just the right people at the right places.�

    Well stated,

    Alot of times fracturing occurs as one branch of government begins to confront the other.

    For example,

    An arizona Farmer is going to have his land arbitrarily, and wrongfully taken away from him by the federal government.  It will leave him destitute.

    The government orders the local sheriff to throw the farmer off of his land.  The Sheriff refuses, and states publically that the land grab is wrong.

    The federal government then issues a warrant for the Sherrif on the grounds of “obstruction of the law”, sending in ATF/FBI to do the job.

    The Sheriff stands his ground with the support of his force, and the local people support their duly elected sheriff, and stand their ground too…

    One branch vs the other, and once the blood letting starts, it only gets worse.  Revolution.

    well you are sorta arguing for my point about weapons now, what you need for a successfull revolution is not an armed public but that certain branches of government sides with the people, which is easier to do when the public is unarmed. if the public is armed and shooting, then they get labled as terrorists and they will never get the support of the branches if government they need.

    SO, to be able to have a revolution by force (guns) you need foreign support, because it is that much more difficult for you to get the army to swich sides. both the russian and french revolution was nonviolent, the got support of army and powerstructures, then they won the following civil war, so none of them needed foregin help to win.  but a straight up rebellion with weapons is doomed to fail.


  • I don’t know how other armed forces work, but we probably had someone on our Submarine from at least 40 different states.  Everyone is rotated to other boats or shore facilities every 3-5 years.  Officers rotate 2-3 years.  There is so much crew turnover that it would be impossible for an entire crew to support the Captain- they just aren’t together long enough.  Not like hundreds of years ago when armies tended to be loyal to their commander and followed blindly.

    My point is thus- if the Captain told us that California is in open revolt, or terrorists have taken over LA, etc- do you think that the dozen or so Californians on the boat would go along with a strike on civilians?  I sure as hell would not want my submarine to send tomahawks on South Carolina right now - knowing my wife and kid are here.  I wouldn’t want them to fire on Dallas, TX because my parents are there.  I have family in Washington, DC too.

    There is also free press here- with varying degrees of liberal/conservative bias, but they are there.  I don’t think the public could be duped into thinking the state of California are all terrorists if they were defending themselves from the US Army.

    If there was a Civil War, all branches of the government would split.  You have congressmen from different states; Supreme court justices from different states; a president from another country ( :-D… ok Hawaii).  Every military unit would have to decide which side they are on.

    A handgun can still kill a man, even wearing body armor; so yes the ‘farmer’ with a shotgun could fight in a civil war; perhaps not against a tank battalion, but in the streets, in his home, etc.


  • @BJCard:

    My point is thus- if the Captain told us that California is in open revolt, or terrorists have taken over LA, etc- do you think that the dozen or so Californians on the boat would go along with a strike on civilians?  I sure as hell would not want my submarine to send tomahawks on South Carolina right now - knowing my wife and kid are here.  I wouldn’t want them to fire on Dallas, TX because my parents are there.  I have family in Washington, DC too.

    this is sorta the point, if you have a gun then you are not a civilian, you are among the “terrorists”. The captain would not say that valifornia was in open revolt, he would say that terrorists hating our democracy have launched terrorist attacks against the capitol. He would say that you where going in to restore order and arrest the terrorists, the plan would be just like the plan the national guard had when it went into LA during the LA riots, and it would get crushed exactly like they where the moment the shooting started.

    you can also look at the coup attempt against chavez to see what happens when protestors starts to shoot, the TV images of chavez supporters shooting was almost enough to make chavez loose the presidency.

    It is very difficult to gather enough momentum to get to a civil war. to get enough people to join the decenting people, the protests needs to be nonviolent. even the american revolution wasn’t violent until it had gathered enough support and momentum to start a “civil war”.


  • Well, I guess my point is that all of government, including the armed forces will fracture.  Every state has a national guard and the country has military forces all over the world.  Every military unit has people from many different states and ‘walks of life.’

    Anyway, I’m not sure what we are arguing right now-  back to topic…

    Germany using chemical and biological warfare to win WWII?  Could have dropped devastating biological/chemical agents on the UK and the US and to a lesser extent Russia…


  • @BJCard:

    Germany using chemical and biological warfare to win WWII?  Could have dropped devastating biological/chemical agents on the UK and the US and to a lesser extent Russia…

    It depends on the type, but some chemical weapons are quite localized in their effects and soon become diluted in the atmosphere to a point where their effectiveness is reduced.  They can be regarded more as tactical-level harassment tools than war-winning strategic weapons.  Nerve gases (like Sarin, Tabun and Soman, which Germany experimented with) are particularly nasty in their effects, so they might have had some use as a terror weapon against enemy cities (given the assumption of a proper delivery system), but the conventional bombings campaigns (using explosives and incendiaries) against Britain and Germany and Japan showed that civilians could endure some pretty devastating attacks without cracking.  As for biological warfare, one of its problems is that can be hard to control and thus potentially dangerous to your own side if the disease is communicable and can propagate on its own.  Germany was also probably aware that Britain had a weaponized anthrax program and was in a position to hit back at Germany if Britain was the target of a biological attack.


  • and as a add - on to CWO´s explanation is to say:

    If you Blitz then there is no need and time for gas!!


  • @aequitas:

    and as a add - on to CWO´s explanation is to say:

    If you Blitz then there is no need and time for gas!!

    I was thinking more along the lines of:

    Gasing London via V1/V2 rocket or bomber delivery
    Using biological agents in the US via submarine delivery

    Sure, these are reprehensible tactics, and Germany may be asking for their return in kind, but ultimately Germany was destroyed anyway- perhaps the UK would have cut a deal with them or maybe not.

    As far as Russia was concerned, the Germans could have been more prepared for the poor roads and winter.  They could have spent the better part of a year consolidating their gains and developing better motorized vehicles to be used in Russia- not to mention supplying their men with winter gear.  Perhaps during this year they could press the war in the Mediterranean, maybe even seizing the Suez Canal and linking up with Iraq.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 7
  • 3
  • 18
  • 29
  • 14
  • 10
  • 8
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

29

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts