• I’d say the anti-semitism and “people without room” policy decided it.

    No, that wasnt it.


  • @TG:

    Rommel wasn’t Detriech Bonhoffer. If that were the case, why would Rommel try to improve the shore defenses of the French coast to highest degree in the shortest amount of time possible (even predicting that the Allies would land in the lightly defended coast of Normandy)? As for Hitler’s generals, repeatly disobeying Hitler, that is true, but only to save the lives of their men and because it was the right thing militarily to do – unlike Hitler’s “Fight to the Last Man” orders

    Yes he did predict Normandy, but there was another general in charge of repeling the upcoming D-Day invasion who predicted the attack would come farther north and suggested to Hitler to keep some of the German armor further inland as back up. Because Rommel and this other general (whose name I cannot remember) both made very good points, Hitler divided the forces between them, basically securing Allied victory in D-Day.


  • Well there were actually two train of thoughts. One which stated that the Germans should crush the Allies on the beachhead outright. The other was to lure the Allies deep inside France and crush them in a decisive battle, where naval battle would not be an advantage. Hitler also split resources here, leading to his defeat.


  • I’d say it was the restrictions and burden placed on Germany at the end of WWI. All the other points are icing on the pie…I mean cake.


  • Rommel and other generals actually warned that the allies would come through normandy, but hitler in his wisdom decided that that was an allied plan of distraction. that why he didnt allow the germa army to use its tank forces against the normandy beaches.

    Hitler also split up the comman structure in the west too much because he feared that under a unified command one individual would be too tempted to try to oust him or negotiate with the allies.

    So there again, Hitler brought and cost Germany the war.

    another thing on Rommel. I agree witht he people that suggest Rommel wasnt a traitor, but loyal to germany. i think he could best be compared to gerneral lee in the american civil war. especially in the later stages he was more and more disgusted by Hitler, but felt he had to do his duty for this country.


  • @El:

    I’d say it was the restrictions and burden placed on Germany at the end of WWI. All the other points are icing on the pie…I mean cake.

    Yes… I agree whole heartedly… But that is just saying that the allies have as much fault in in starting WW2 than the Axis…
    Not what decided it…


  • The Battle of Britain decided the war. After that, the Western Allies would forever have air supremecy over Germany, pounding the damn place to the stoneage.

    Of your choices, well the Economic Capacity of the United States was staggering. Also, the lack of key natural resources on the parts of the Germans and Japaneese played a huge part. Hitler would of lasted longer if he didn’t have a lack of oil. The Japaneese, even more so.


  • Rommel and other generals actually warned that the allies would come through normandy, but hitler in his wisdom decided that that was an allied plan of distraction. that why he didnt allow the germa army to use its tank forces against the normandy beaches.

    Well actually, the Allied plan of distraction involved creating a fake army commanded by Gen. Patton that was supposed to land at the Pas de Calais (i think). So in this case, Hitler could have been forgiven (or whatever) for his mistake.


  • I think the big mistake was Germany deciding to attack the Soviet Union when they did. Maybe I don’t see something from the historical record, but opening a 2nd front before the UK was on the ropes was a bad choice in my opinion, and it led to the eventual allied victory.


  • The Battle of Britain was significant, but not the cause. Like I already said earlier, there was no one cause. It was a contributing effort of many things, including the Battle of Britain. To some extend, any one event could have been changed, with the outcome of the war remaining the same. But in the same way, all the key events that have been pointed to as the cause were instead just major contributers.


  • The poll is not clear as to whether it refers to starting or ending the war.

    I would say the deciding factor ending the war was
    that the Allies beat Italy, Germany and Japan! :wink:

    I just thought of a new A&A variant/house rule. Gotta post it…


  • I don’t care how good your leaders are, you just can’t beat production numbers. Stalin was a horrible leader and a poor military strategist, yet how did he beat Hitler? Sheer numbers.


  • Yea, those Russians. Everything they do is in mass numbers. Whenever they lose people, its in the millions of casualties. I guess it gets pretty cold up there. :wink:


  • Americans too. Where do you think all of those 10 Shermans vs 1 Panzer fight came from? :)


  • Well thats because comparatively, shermans sucked. I mean, there were cases where shells from shermans bounced off panzer armor. thats crap! but the russians seem to have less sensitivity. i mean, they are true masters of the meat grinder tactic, send wave after wave of troops to their death to overwhelm the enemy. meanwhile, the americans take 5 casualties, and the public cant stand it anymore. damn americans!


  • Well thats because comparatively, shermans sucked. I mean, there were cases where shells from shermans bounced off panzer armor

    That’s not what I meant; I’m trying to say that production numbers (economy) was a determining factor in the war. Hell I don’t care if Germany had all King Tigers, US still would’ve defeated them in numbers alone.


  • @TG:

    I don’t care how good your leaders are, you just can’t beat production numbers. Stalin was a horrible leader and a poor military strategist, yet how did he beat Hitler? Sheer numbers.

    Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong would argue otherwise.


  • @EmuGod:

    @TG:

    I don’t care how good your leaders are, you just can’t beat production numbers. Stalin was a horrible leader and a poor military strategist, yet how did he beat Hitler? Sheer numbers.

    Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong would argue otherwise.

    I don’t think so. Shrek :) , maybe, but Mayo :D just used Stalin and his toys to do things the ChiCom way.

    And it depends how big the production #s are.
    Besides the Rooskies had to figure out that they needed to get
    behind the Nazi tanks for the best shot.


  • Actually, that’s not true. Mao Zedong did not get aid from Stalin. He used guerilla warfare to wear down the Nationalist troops which outnumbered him 5 to 1 and slowly began to win the sympathy of the people and ruined Chiang’s popularity or lack thereof among the people. Chiang’s soldiers began abandoning him and sided with Mao. Chiang also got aid from the United States, but even with that he failed.

    Another example is the French in Indo-China. Though 75% their war costs were paid for by the Americans, they still lost to the guerillas which they outnumbered and outgunned. But then again, the French in wars are never a good example since the last time they won a war was in the French Revolution when they fought each other.


  • @El:

    @EmuGod:

    @TG:

    I don’t care how good your leaders are, you just can’t beat production numbers. Stalin was a horrible leader and a poor military strategist, yet how did he beat Hitler? Sheer numbers.

    Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong would argue otherwise.

    I don’t think so. Shrek :) , maybe, but Mayo :D just used Stalin and his toys to do things the ChiCom way.

    And it depends how big the production #s are.
    Besides the Rooskies had to figure out that they needed to get
    behind the Nazi tanks for the best shot.

    or Invent the T-34 and teach em a lesson :wink: …

Suggested Topics

  • 64
  • 2
  • 12
  • 82
  • 14
  • 11
  • 45
  • 63
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

28

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts