What would help germany more in ww2?


  • what your opinon?


  • Not worry too much about the RAF and just start bombardments on the shoreline and deal with it that the RAF is there.

    Recover from that and invade USSR, just start bombing raids on Moscow, send some tanks.

    When US declare war get South American allies.


  • Eliminate Hitler in 1934, then you might not have had a WW2 in the manner that it actually took place, which would have been of far greater benefit to Germany.  The likely line up would have been UK/France/Germany/Italy against the USSR.  Now that would be an interesting A&A variant, since without major German re-armament, it is likely that the UK and France would have been a bit slower than they were.  Although it is hard to imagine how France could have been slower with respect to its army and air force.


  • The Holocaust only cost the Nazi’s after the allies actually found out and that wasnt until late 1944-early 1945 so it wouldnt of done them much good for it not to of happend. If they had of been nice to conquered people they would of had an army of millions of Ukrainians and other non Russian citizens on their side ready to fight Stalin. Lets not forget that when they took Kiev they were initially welcomed as liberators not conquerors.The USSR couldnt deal with both a war with Nazi Germany and an uprising against communist rule and it all would of fallen apart for the USSR. A Russian once said in “In Stalin’s purges there wasnt one family that hadnt lost a family member” if the Germans were seen as an alternative to oppressive rule then they would of been victorious.

    Waiting until 1945 wasnt really an option either, Stalin knew what was coming and key projects like the T-34 were already underway in the earl 1940’s by 1945 the Soviet Union would of completely overshadowed the German armed forces and the Germans would of thought that they didnt have a chance especially without their “Blitzkreig” victories over superior enemies like the French and British in France.

    If Hitler had of been assasinated in late 1939 till even as late as just before Barbarossa and a more moderate leader had come to power perhaps military rule under the likes of an honourable man like Rommel that the world could and would respect things would of been different. A peace treaty would of been hammered out, the French would of got back bits of France and the Germans would of retained the rest and then the British and Germans would of gone to war with the Soviet Union, because with a reasonable stable government in Nazi Germany they were no longer a threat and communism must be crushed. With a men like Churchill and Rommel in charge historians would of wondered why they went to war in the first place, it would be the victorious anglo-german alliance against the evil Stalin and the USSR and Hitler would of been but a footnote in history.


  • The Germans shouldnt have had a bunch of racist idialogical unscientific bigots running their country.

    They either shouldn’t have fought the war or they should have fought a much smaller one. Even if they had “won” the war in 1940-1942 they would never have been able to germanafy all of Europe and thus their empire would have been ripped apart by the forces of nationalism just like every other empire.

    Also, Rommel would not have replaced Hitler in 1939 as Rommel only became famous after the invasion of France and as a result of Hitler himself. Hitler promoted the likes of younger officers to thwart the efforts of the older “aristocratic” and “prussian” officers who were a threat to the Nazi Party. Rommel, Guderian and Thoma all came to despise Hitler, but they would have never acheived their pre-war breakthroughs in the development of armored warfare if not for the Nazi party. No panzer divisions, no blitzkrieg, no victory.

    read Panzer Leader and Actung Panzer! by Guderian and Hitler’s Generals by Liddel Hart for the full story.


  • @Emperor_Taiki:

    The Germans shouldnt have had a bunch of racist idialogical unscientific bigots running their country.

    They either shouldn’t have fought the war or they should have fought a much smaller one. Even if they had “won” the war in 1940-1942 they would never have been able to germanafy all of Europe and thus their empire would have been ripped apart by the forces of nationalism just like every other empire.

    Also, Rommel would not have replaced Hitler in 1939 as Rommel only became famous after the invasion of France and as a result of Hitler himself. Hitler promoted the likes of younger officers to thwart the efforts of the older “aristocratic” and “prussian” officers who were a threat to the Nazi Party. Rommel, Guderian and Thoma all came to despise Hitler, but they would have never acheived their pre-war breakthroughs in the development of armored warfare if not for the Nazi party. No panzer divisions, no blitzkrieg, no victory.

    read Panzer Leader and Actung Panzer! by Guderian and Hitler’s Generals by Liddel Hart for the full story.

    I said a man like Rommel, not necessarily Rommel himself. Just a military man who could be respected by both the German people and world leaders alike. Personally I am not aware of who exactly would of been in a position to take over the Nazi leadership after Hitlers death. Whether or not the could Germanise all of Europe is good question, of course eventually ethnic and nationalist ideals would tare a Nazi empire apart but the question is how long would it of taken. If the Nazi leadership had of not been run by racists but purely by ambitious men the war could of turned out very differently, large numbers of both Ukrainians and Russians would of joined the German armed forces against Stalin. I dont think they would of cared who run the show as long as they werent brutalised and actually given a fair go to make something of themselves. How long their admiration for their liberators would of lasted is up for debate but what would of really decided the fate of a prospective Nazi empire would be the policy towards non-germans in their new territories. If they were reasonably fair and just, offering representation for the locals and the right to vote in democratic elections for a governor of their particular territory under Nazi rule a Nazi empire may very well of held together especially considering how many people suffered so horribly under the regimes of the USSR.


  • @Octospire:

    @Emperor_Taiki:

    The Germans shouldnt have had a bunch of racist idialogical unscientific bigots running their country.

    They either shouldn’t have fought the war or they should have fought a much smaller one. Even if they had “won” the war in 1940-1942 they would never have been able to germanafy all of Europe and thus their empire would have been ripped apart by the forces of nationalism just like every other empire.

    Also, Rommel would not have replaced Hitler in 1939 as Rommel only became famous after the invasion of France and as a result of Hitler himself. Hitler promoted the likes of younger officers to thwart the efforts of the older “aristocratic” and “prussian” officers who were a threat to the Nazi Party. Rommel, Guderian and Thoma all came to despise Hitler, but they would have never acheived their pre-war breakthroughs in the development of armored warfare if not for the Nazi party. No panzer divisions, no blitzkrieg, no victory.

    read Panzer Leader and Actung Panzer! by Guderian and Hitler’s Generals by Liddel Hart for the full story.

    I said a man like Rommel, not necessarily Rommel himself. Just a military man who could be respected by both the German people and world leaders alike. Personally I am not aware of who exactly would of been in a position to take over the Nazi leadership after Hitlers death. Whether or not the could Germanise all of Europe is good question, of course eventually ethnic and nationalist ideals would tare a Nazi empire apart but the question is how long would it of taken. If the Nazi leadership had of not been run by racists but purely by ambitious men the war could of turned out very differently, large numbers of both Ukrainians and Russians would of joined the German armed forces against Stalin. I dont think they would of cared who run the show as long as they werent brutalised and actually given a fair go to make something of themselves. How long their admiration for their liberators would of lasted is up for debate but what would of really decided the fate of a prospective Nazi empire would be the policy towards non-germans in their new territories. If they were reasonably fair and just, offering representation for the locals and the right to vote in democratic elections for a governor of their particular territory under Nazi rule a Nazi empire may very well of held together especially considering how many people suffered so horribly under the regimes of the USSR.

    But that goes against Nazism, so it would not be a Nazi empire. It would be a German Empire


  • No barbarossa until England was forced to be either an ally or at least neutral. Also, taking UKs possessions in Africa would helped Germany against England, even if it would do more damage to UK than good to Germany, Germany had to get “rid” of England before the war against Russia, at least, England could not be an enemy.

    It would also help if the Germans threated “non Germanic” people better than they did. Even if a few Norwegians was killed during the German occupation of Norway, they threated us fairly good, compared to what they did to the Slavic people of eastern Europe. This fact resulted in that only very few Norwegians opposed the occupation by use of arms, with good help of UK we did some minor sabotage and minor guerrilla warfare against the German occupation, and many Norwegians joined the Norwegian political party, “Nasjonal samling”, with Quisling as the well known infamous treacherous leader.


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    @Octospire:

    @Emperor_Taiki:

    The Germans shouldnt have had a bunch of racist idialogical unscientific bigots running their country.

    They either shouldn’t have fought the war or they should have fought a much smaller one. Even if they had “won” the war in 1940-1942 they would never have been able to germanafy all of Europe and thus their empire would have been ripped apart by the forces of nationalism just like every other empire.

    Also, Rommel would not have replaced Hitler in 1939 as Rommel only became famous after the invasion of France and as a result of Hitler himself. Hitler promoted the likes of younger officers to thwart the efforts of the older “aristocratic” and “prussian” officers who were a threat to the Nazi Party. Rommel, Guderian and Thoma all came to despise Hitler, but they would have never acheived their pre-war breakthroughs in the development of armored warfare if not for the Nazi party. No panzer divisions, no blitzkrieg, no victory.

    read Panzer Leader and Actung Panzer! by Guderian and Hitler’s Generals by Liddel Hart for the full story.

    I said a man like Rommel, not necessarily Rommel himself. Just a military man who could be respected by both the German people and world leaders alike. Personally I am not aware of who exactly would of been in a position to take over the Nazi leadership after Hitlers death. Whether or not the could Germanise all of Europe is good question, of course eventually ethnic and nationalist ideals would tare a Nazi empire apart but the question is how long would it of taken. If the Nazi leadership had of not been run by racists but purely by ambitious men the war could of turned out very differently, large numbers of both Ukrainians and Russians would of joined the German armed forces against Stalin. I dont think they would of cared who run the show as long as they werent brutalised and actually given a fair go to make something of themselves. How long their admiration for their liberators would of lasted is up for debate but what would of really decided the fate of a prospective Nazi empire would be the policy towards non-germans in their new territories. If they were reasonably fair and just, offering representation for the locals and the right to vote in democratic elections for a governor of their particular territory under Nazi rule a Nazi empire may very well of held together especially considering how many people suffered so horribly under the regimes of the USSR.

    But that goes against Nazism, so it would not be a Nazi empire. It would be a German Empire

    That really depends on how you look at it, at the time Nazism was viewed as hyper nationalist (facism is defined as a hyper nationalist regime) not as particularly racist. It would of still been a Nazi empire it just wouldnt of been a racist empire under a different much more moderate leader. You dont have to be a racist to be facist. Back in the 1930’s facism wasnt the dirty word it is today many countries flirted with the idea of becoming facists including the UK and the U.S. Nazism is a facist ideology not particularly racist or at least it wasnt in the early 1930’s, the average German who supported or fought for the Nazi’s wasnt a racist merely an individual fighting for or supporting his or her country.


  • Every major area under German occupation was a food deficit area. That included Germany proper, France, the Netherlands, Poland, etc. Soviet territories were also food deficit areas, with the Ukraine being the sole exception. But the food surplus from the Ukraine was not nearly enough to offset the food deficits that existed everywhere else in German-occupied territory. Because of the Anglo-American food blockade, Hitler did not have enough food to feed the people within his borders. Because Hitler lacked the food with which to feed everyone, he enacted the Holocaust (fewer mouths to feed), and assigned unskilled Slavic laborers the second-lowest priority for food rations. Because there wasn’t enough food to feed everyone, large numbers of people within German-held territory were going to suffer, starve, and die no matter how Hitler or some other leader had chosen to allocate Germany’s food. Had Hitler chosen to forego the Holocaust or the starvation of the Slavs in the eastern territories, some other group of people would have had to have been starved or otherwise killed instead to balance out the food equation.

    I also didn’t choose the “assassinate Hitler in 1934” option. No major western democracy had an anti-Soviet foreign policy until 1948. In 1919, Poland and the Soviet Union found themselves at war. Neither Britain nor France sent soldiers to help. Britain even refused to sell Poland weapons, but sold them to the Soviets instead. France provided Poland with military advisors, but little help beyond that. When Poland was on the verge of being annexed by the Soviet Union, Britain and France advised the Polish government to negotiate the best surrender terms they could. Instead, the Polish won an unexpected victory outside Warsaw; a victory which paved the way for Polish freedom from Soviet oppression for the next twenty years.

    By the 1930s the major Western democracies had, if anything, become even more pro-Soviet. In 1935, France and Czechoslovakia signed defensive alliances with the Soviet Union. For the previous several centuries, France’s foreign policy had been emphatically and strongly anti-German. The plan–at least in the mid-‘30s–was for Britain and France to join the Soviet Union in ganging up on and conquering Germany. That plan failed not because of any lack of willingness on the Western democracies’ part, but because Stalin regarded both Germany and Western democracies as equally enemies. He wanted a long, bloody war between Germany and the Western democracies–a war which would bleed both sides white, without in any way involving the Soviet Union. Then after both sides had been sufficiently weakened, the Red Army would move westward into Europe to pick up the pieces.

    Just as the Western democracies had been perfectly willing to abandon Poland to its fate back in 1920, so too they would have done nothing to counter any Soviet expansion into Eastern or Central Europe. Given the Western democracies’ nearly complete lack of interest in countering Soviet expansionism, the only viable counterweight to the Soviet Union would have been a militarized Germany. A militarized Germany implied defiance of the Versailles Treaty, which would have implied at least a certain lack of political moderation.

    In the spring of 1941, the German Army consisted of 150 divisions; 100 of which were used to invade the Soviet Union. By the end of 1941, Soviet recruitment efforts had increased the size of the Red Army to 600 divisions. Dealing with a threat like that would have (and did) require a high degree of militarization; which in turn would be interpreted as a threat by both the British and French governments.

    Given the cards Hitler was dealt (a lack of Western interest in opposing Soviet expansionism, and strong Western opposition to German militarization), he probably did as good or better job of opposing the Soviet threat than some other German leader would have done. Assassinating Hitler probably wouldn’t have let Germany escape from the terror and brutality of a Soviet occupation.

    Instead, the option I chose was to wait to invade the Soviet Union until 1945. However, from 1940 on, Germany would have faced massive numbers of British and American aircraft. In order to protect its cities from firestorms, Germany would have needed to focus largely on fighter production; while also employing jet aircraft and Wasserfall weapons as early and in as wide a scale as possible. Possibly, such efforts could have provided at least some protection to Germany’s cities and its people from the massive Allied advantage in aircraft production. Then in 1945–after Germany had been fully industrialized–it would have had a better chance of taking on the Red Army.


  • Of the options, I would say it would have to be nicer to the conquered people.  Like Octosphere states, millions of Ukranians might have made a difference on the eastern front.  Also, less resistance in the conquered territories would have made troop and supply transport easier.  Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and many other cities/battles were won by the Russians by only the slimest of margins.  Had Moscow fell, for example, the soviet structure might have collapsed (or at the very least split Russia up into two areas as IIRC the last north-south railroads for Russi went through Moscow) giving Germany a win.


  • @221B:

    Of the options, I would say it would have to be nicer to the conquered people.  Like Octosphere states, millions of Ukranians might have made a difference on the eastern front.  Also, less resistance in the conquered territories would have made troop and supply transport easier.  Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and many other cities/battles were won by the Russians by only the slimest of margins.  Had Moscow fell, for example, the soviet structure might have collapsed (or at the very least split Russia up into two areas as IIRC the last north-south railroads for Russi went through Moscow) giving Germany a win.

    As Kurt said in the post above, since Germany had a food shortage, if it were nicer to the conquered, it would have to starve others. Anyway, capturing Moscow means they would keep fighting like they did when Napoleon took Moscow.


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    @221B:

    Of the options, I would say it would have to be nicer to the conquered people.  Like Octosphere states, millions of Ukranians might have made a difference on the eastern front.  Also, less resistance in the conquered territories would have made troop and supply transport easier.  Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and many other cities/battles were won by the Russians by only the slimest of margins.  Had Moscow fell, for example, the soviet structure might have collapsed (or at the very least split Russia up into two areas as IIRC the last north-south railroads for Russi went through Moscow) giving Germany a win.

    As Kurt said in the post above, since Germany had a food shortage, if it were nicer to the conquered, it would have to starve others. Anyway, capturing Moscow means they would keep fighting like they did when Napoleon took Moscow.

    Can we get some numbers on the food shortages in the sphere of influence of Nazi Germany? I’ve read about the food shortages in WW1 but never for WW2.
    Anyways, even with a food shortage that i’m really not sure how severe it was, rationing amongst the new occupied territories wouldnt of been the end of the world, most of the world was dealing with rationing at the time, even in my home nation of Australia thousands of miles from the nearest battle front (not including a few minor japanese bombings of our northern most harbours). If the Nazi’s did enlist the aid millions of Ukrainian soldiers as well as Belorussians etc into the Nazi cause and the battle for Moscow would of been over before the food shortage really became a problem. According to my figures the Nazi’s committed 13.6 Million soldiers to its army, another 4 or 5 million Ukrainians even if only used as cannon fodder or for diversionary tactics may very well of helped the Nazi’s take Moscow or may even of resulted in a similar coup against Stalin like the communists institued against the Tsar in 1917 and result in a surrender for the USSR.


  • @Octospire:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    @221B:

    Of the options, I would say it would have to be nicer to the conquered people.  Like Octosphere states, millions of Ukranians might have made a difference on the eastern front.  Also, less resistance in the conquered territories would have made troop and supply transport easier.  Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and many other cities/battles were won by the Russians by only the slimest of margins.  Had Moscow fell, for example, the soviet structure might have collapsed (or at the very least split Russia up into two areas as IIRC the last north-south railroads for Russi went through Moscow) giving Germany a win.

    As Kurt said in the post above, since Germany had a food shortage, if it were nicer to the conquered, it would have to starve others. Anyway, capturing Moscow means they would keep fighting like they did when Napoleon took Moscow.

    Can we get some numbers on the food shortages in the sphere of influence of Nazi Germany? I’ve read about the food shortages in WW1 but never for WW2.
    Anyways, even with a food shortage that i’m really not sure how severe it was, rationing amongst the new occupied territories wouldnt of been the end of the world, most of the world was dealing with rationing at the time, even in my home nation of Australia thousands of miles from the nearest battle front (not including a few minor japanese bombings of our northern most harbours). If the Nazi’s did enlist the aid millions of Ukrainian soldiers as well as Belorussians etc into the Nazi cause and the battle for Moscow would of been over before the food shortage really became a problem. According to my figures the Nazi’s committed 13.6 Million soldiers to its army, another 4 or 5 million Ukrainians even if only used as cannon fodder or for diversionary tactics may very well of helped the Nazi’s take Moscow or may even of resulted in a similar coup against Stalin like the communists institued against the Tsar in 1917 and result in a surrender for the USSR.

    Not sure about surrender. Napoleon took Moscow but lost since his supply line was too long. German’s supply line was long too. This is why amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics. Keep in mind that the Western Allies, even having Air and land superiority, weren’t able to invade Western Germany in late 1944 since their lines were stretched


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    @Octospire:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    @221B:

    Of the options, I would say it would have to be nicer to the conquered people.  Like Octosphere states, millions of Ukranians might have made a difference on the eastern front.  Also, less resistance in the conquered territories would have made troop and supply transport easier.  Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and many other cities/battles were won by the Russians by only the slimest of margins.  Had Moscow fell, for example, the soviet structure might have collapsed (or at the very least split Russia up into two areas as IIRC the last north-south railroads for Russi went through Moscow) giving Germany a win.

    As Kurt said in the post above, since Germany had a food shortage, if it were nicer to the conquered, it would have to starve others. Anyway, capturing Moscow means they would keep fighting like they did when Napoleon took Moscow.

    Can we get some numbers on the food shortages in the sphere of influence of Nazi Germany? I’ve read about the food shortages in WW1 but never for WW2.
    Anyways, even with a food shortage that i’m really not sure how severe it was, rationing amongst the new occupied territories wouldnt of been the end of the world, most of the world was dealing with rationing at the time, even in my home nation of Australia thousands of miles from the nearest battle front (not including a few minor japanese bombings of our northern most harbours). If the Nazi’s did enlist the aid millions of Ukrainian soldiers as well as Belorussians etc into the Nazi cause and the battle for Moscow would of been over before the food shortage really became a problem. According to my figures the Nazi’s committed 13.6 Million soldiers to its army, another 4 or 5 million Ukrainians even if only used as cannon fodder or for diversionary tactics may very well of helped the Nazi’s take Moscow or may even of resulted in a similar coup against Stalin like the communists institued against the Tsar in 1917 and result in a surrender for the USSR.

    Not sure about surrender. Napoleon took Moscow but lost since his supply line was too long. German’s supply line was long too. This is why amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics. Keep in mind that the Western Allies, even having Air and land superiority, weren’t able to invade Western Germany in late 1944 since their lines were stretched

    I’m not only talking logistics, i’m talking politics. German logistics got them to the gates of Moscow only dogged defence, bad weather and unsuitable equipment for winter warfare robbed them of their victory. That is hardly a failure of logistics but a failure of policy, Hitler thought the war with USSR would be over by the time winter came around, he was very wrong. My father had a friend who took part in the siege of Moscow and they took to stealing the clothing off of dead Russian soldiers just to keep warm, needless to say they werent to pleased with the German high command and Hitler himself, that drop in morale and the freezing temperatures that claimed thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of German lives could of been the factor that inevitably cost them Moscow and maybe even the entire war. He was a funny old fella he had this joke/probably coping mechanism “I rode all the way to the Moscow on a Panzer tank and I ran all the home” 😛

    If the Germans had of been nice to the conquered people’s their would of mostly likely would of been a coup against Stalin to aleiveate any greater loss of life because with Ukrainian and Russian manpower in German hands a German victory would of been all but a certainty.

    Its all well and good to talk about logistics and even tactics, but politics trump both, the people of the USSR hated Stalin before WW2 he wiped out 20 million+ citizens of the USSR and had the Germans acted like liberators not conquerors those people so traumatised by Stalin’s “purges” they would of been more than willing to pick up a gun and fight for not only their freedom but by association a Nazi victory.

    If Hitler had of ordered the troops to be civil and obey all provisions of the Geneva convention the Nazi’s could of won the war long before they even reached the gates of Moscow, Stalin would of been deposed by even those in the communist party who wanted to rule fairly and with compassion and rule with the love of the people not by using fear. Millions of Russians would of rose up to fight for their freedom, how long that freedom could of lasted is open to debate, but considering more or less every family lost someone to Stalin’s purges they would of viewed Hitler as a much better alternative in this hypothetical situation.

    Just reading about the senior German generals in 1939-1940 some of whom were looked upon as only being soldiers fighting for their country, if the likes of Guderian or Von Manstein had of come to power following the assasination of Hilter the war would of been very different most likely involving a German victory and perhaps more favourable relations with the British and Americans. Also even if Von Manstein was given complete control of the war against the Soviets his tactics of of an elastic defence line may very well of won the Axis the war in the East.

  • '12

    It’s a myth that the German army was fully mechanized.  A former British colony with less than 1/6 of the German population produced more trucks than Germany+Italy+Japan+USSR combined during the war years.  The lack of full mechanization of German units and supply lines was not evident in France or Poland as they are tiny nations compared to the USSR and supply lines were short.  During the invasion of the USSR most germany artillery was horse drawn.  The German army relied on huge numbers of horses for logistics.  The horses required food and didn’t take to being exposed to soviet winters and died by the 100s of 1000s.

    Germany was fairly industrialized but was lacking in key areas.  It’s farms were less efficient and required several times the manhours per unit of food produced.  While they produced some great cars, they were out of reach for most german workers so there was a lack of mass production and related skills (read industrial logistics) whereas north america had a huge auto industry that could be tapped for mass production.  Allied tanks sucked (save the soviet tanks), I forget which model was called the ronson (as in lighter) but it was dark humour as the tank like the lighter ‘lit up with the first stike’.  However, quantity has a certain quality which the allies proved.

  • '12

    The Germany economy didn’t go on a war footing until late.  While the allies were vigorously rationing, Germany was not.  Why?  We like to think of Hitler like say Stalin or Saddam, you desent, you die.  However, Hitler treated the germans masses as if they were a democracy and he could be voted out of office.  Again, why?  Simple, he was part of the German military machine in WWI.  The army felt betrayed by the ‘home front’, the german people gave up because they were unhappy by fall 1918.  Starving to death has a funny way of making you sue for peace.  So Hitler felt it important to keep the home front happy by keeping luxury good available for as long as possible.

    While the Ukrainians and other conqoured soviet peoples truly hated Stalin, this hatred was not nearly as strong for average ethnic russians.  After attacked, people have a funny way of pulling together.  Do you think most Iranians love their political leaders?  I bet if you did a poll today then say attack their nuclear infastructure then take a poll you would find a sudden love for the mullahs umongst most Iranians.  I would not limit the poll to say kurdish regions inside Iran then extrapolate that poll across all of Iran.  That being said, having Ukraine on your side is significant and would have done much to help the food situation in the nazi empire.


  • @MrMalachiCrunch:

    The Germany economy didn’t go on a war footing until late.  While the allies were vigorously rationing, Germany was not.  Why?  We like to think of Hitler like say Stalin or Saddam, you desent, you die.  However, Hitler treated the germans masses as if they were a democracy and he could be voted out of office.  Again, why?  Simple, he was part of the German military machine in WWI.  The army felt betrayed by the ‘home front’, the german people gave up because they were unhappy by fall 1918.  Starving to death has a funny way of making you sue for peace.  So Hitler felt it important to keep the home front happy by keeping luxury good available for as long as possible.

    While the Ukrainians and other conqoured soviet peoples truly hated Stalin, this hatred was not nearly as strong for average ethnic russians.  After attacked, people have a funny way of pulling together.  Do you think most Iranians love their political leaders?  I bet if you did a poll today then say attack their nuclear infastructure then take a poll you would find a sudden love for the mullahs umongst most Iranians.  I would not limit the poll to say kurdish regions inside Iran then extrapolate that poll across all of Iran.  That being said, having Ukraine on your side is significant and would have done much to help the food situation in the nazi empire.

    The Sherman was called the Ronson and the Germans also quite famously called it “The tommy cooker” because one shell from a Panther would either blow it to pieces or light it on fire and the soldiers in the tank had an estimated 13 seconds to get away from the tank before it exploded. Had the German economy gone into rationing mode and full war production it would of been a very different war and a German victory would of been much more likely, where the Germans truly lacked was in the skies whether it be North Africa, France or the Ukraine they never seemed to have enough aircraft to acheive any sort of air superiority had the factories been mobilised for aircraft production the war would of been very different.

    I dont know how much the average Russian would “rally around the flag”, perhaps Iranians would rally around the flag but the Iranian government hasnt really done that much harm to the average Iranian. While on the other hand Stalin had murdered 20 million people so literally everyone knew someone who had just been taken away by the secret police never to be seen again.

    Needless to say I complete agree about the Ukrainians they could of done much to alievate the Nazi’s woes in both man power and food production. If the Nazi’s had of started rationing even from the start of Barbarossa, put German industry in war mode in 1939 and been nice to the conquered peoples they would of won the war on the Eastern front, the cost would of been staggering but a hell of a lot less staggering than there eventual defeat.

  • '12

    I think most of those 20 million killed were Ukrainians?  I think if you look at the stories of average russians during the war there is a great deal of patriatism and in many places you would not think such as tank factories.  Mind you, an arguable amount is due to the fear of what nazis would do to the 'average prolitariot (sp?).

    I’m amazed the german GDP was as great as it was considering that even during the battle of britain german factories were working at 1 shift!  Women were reveared as ‘mothers’ so they ought not to do the dirty work of working in factories……

    While logisitics are not glamours, they do win wars.  Getting my degree in comp sci required a great deal of math, much of it to do with algorithms and optimizations’ of such.  I was amazed at how many algorithms were develped in the wars years that relate to routing and scheduling.  These same algorithms that were ‘run by hand’ to help move things around to improve ‘workflow’ are used to help route internet traffic!

    An interesting paper I found on the net as it relates to math and war.  It’s a pdf file just a heads up.

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.143.2142&rep=rep1&type=pdf


  • @MrMalachiCrunch:

    I think most of those 20 million killed were Ukrainians?  I think if you look at the stories of average russians during the war there is a great deal of patriatism and in many places you would not think such as tank factories.  Mind you, an arguable amount is due to the fear of what nazis would do to the 'average prolitariot (sp?).

    I’m amazed the german GDP was as great as it was considering that even during the battle of britain german factories were working at 1 shift!  Women were reveared as ‘mothers’ so they ought not to do the dirty work of working in factories……

    While logisitics are not glamours, they do win wars.  Getting my degree in comp sci required a great deal of math, much of it to do with algorithms and optimizations’ of such.  I was amazed at how many algorithms were develped in the wars years that relate to routing and scheduling.  These same algorithms that were ‘run by hand’ to help move things around to improve ‘workflow’ are used to help route internet traffic!

    An interesting paper I found on the net as it relates to math and war.  It’s a pdf file just a heads up.

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.143.2142&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    It is truly remarkable that the German women werent working in the factories like the women on the side of the allies. Ironically feminists rarely cite World War 2 as a major cause of womens liberation but there was no greater liberator for women than the ability to work. You could even argue (in my opinion successfully) that not mobilising the women of Germany cost them the war, more factory workers = more production and more men to go off and join the armed forces. Unfourtunetly for the Nazi’s they were too busy getting mothers medals for providing another child for the third reich (this isnt a joke this is actual fact). I agree that logistics matter a great deal and Nazi logistics let the Nazi’s down many times in all theatres they fought in.

    I am just suggesting that politics and the opinions of the day matter an equal amount if not more. Its all well and good for us the people of today to look back with hindsight and say Hitler was evil but in the politics of the day he was considered a hero of the German people that saved from the depression and from being the pawns of the European powers. My fathers friends mother revered Hitler all her life and while she did not agree with his policy of racial hatred she did agree with his policies of German rearmament and Germany once again being a great power. Logistics are irrelevant unless the people at home are willing to fight the war to begin with, its all about like the US State department so eloquently puts it “Winning hearts and minds”, whether they be the hearts and minds of a conquered people or convincing your own people to fight a war for you, a war you start.

    I have heard a great deal about the patriotism of the Russian people, I once read a story of workers in a Tank factory at Stalingrad completing a T-34 and then taking it into battle themselves. Its amazing stuff, I just cant help but feel that if I were in their shoes and the Germans had of been compassionate liberators as opposed to brutal conquerors that more Russians would of collaborated with them. I think having the secret police watching your every move and hauling away anyone who didnt think along the same lines as the communist party would make all of us seem pretty loyal even if only in order to survive. If I was in the shoes of the average Russian (and the Germans were nice) and say for instance Stalin’s death squads killed my brother or my father I would of welcomed the Germans with open arms, asked for rifle, jumped on the front of the nearest Panzer tank and marched with them to Moscow.

    The greatest myth of the 20th Century is that Hitler was greater evil, Stalin was by far the worst, comitting atrocites on an entirely different scale to Hitler. Of course the western powers wouldnt want to publicise that we picked the greater of two evils to ally with. Nor would the Russians even today want to publicise what a brutal regime communism was under Stalin, they are still today trying to change Russian school books to portray Stalin as the great liberator of Eastern Europe not as the murderer he actually was. I’m in no means saying Hitler didnt have to be stopped they both did unfourtunetly the Germans werent brought into the fold of the Alliance of France and Britian before a man such as Hitler came to power.


  • I’m not sure it’s a myth. I haven’t seen anyone who think Hitler was worse than Stalin.

    By the way, keep in mind that sometimes the US acts badly as well. As my history teacher put it, during the cold war, we would overthrow democratically elected socialists(not necessarily communists) or pro-soviet, and install pro-US dictators. A good example is Iran, which may be why they took the hostages in 1979

  • '12

    Most americans don’t know the history of the phillipines that well.  I dated a filipino gal for a few years, got to meet her older brothers.  Yes, during WW II, there was a great deal of help by the filipinos, my gals dad was a guerilla fighter during WW II, no doubt why he ended up an alcoholic.  In any event, the phillipines had also been fairly loyal to spain and when their land was ceded to the US a long war against US occupation began and was brutally supressed.  The war between the phillipines and the United states started in 1898, the population was about 9 million in 1895 by 1908 the population was about 8 million.  In any event, it was much out of the norms for the time sadly.

    Stalin probably was responsible for more non-combat deaths during his tenure then Hitler was during his.  Is that the pure measure of evil?  Given a free hand, how many would they have killed?  Had Stalin had total control of all europe I doubt he would have continued to kill.  His initial killings were purges designed to control the population so to were Hitlers initially against the brown shirts and communists.  But, had Hitler gained total control of Europe we might have seen vast execution camps to get rid of the dirty slavs, jews. gypsies etc etc….  I am sure there are some sick little @#$!&*s out there that are even more evil than either of Hitler or Stalin but luckily they might only manage to kill and eat a few 100 children…


  • Out of the offered choices I’d say being nicer to the conquered peoples… but really, the Nazis conducting a successful Hearts & Minds campaign with untermensch?

    Might as well as ask for jetpacks and phasers.

    #590


  • Why is 1934 the best year to sac Hitler?


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    I’m not sure it’s a myth. I haven’t seen anyone who think Hitler was worse than Stalin.

    By the way, keep in mind that sometimes the US acts badly as well. As my history teacher put it, during the cold war, we would overthrow democratically elected socialists(not necessarily communists) or pro-soviet, and install pro-US dictators. A good example is Iran, which may be why they took the hostages in 1979

    Its all about the media whether it be books, documentarys etc, how many people even know the basic story of WW2 let alone what occured under Stalin? Stalin is responsible for more deaths than Hitler by a factor of at least 2 and god only knows how many would of died if he had of controlled all of Europe like MalachiCrunch suggested. Stalin is by far the greater evil. So in my opinion and with the numbers to back it up Stalin was by far the greater menance to the world. As if our schools would have us being taught that we picked the wrong side in WW2?

    Our victory in WW2 was as Niall Ferguson put it was “A tainted victory if it could be called a victory at all”. The western powers collaborated with the one of historys greatest monsters who sent over 20+ million to their deaths (and that is based on pre 1941 numbers) that doesnt even include collaborators in the Soviet Union like the Cossacks who ended up in British custody after the war and then turned over to Stalin in return for promises of free elections in eastern Europe which never happend. Hitler ruled because the people allowed him to rule (he was even democratically elected), and the people even wanted him to rule. Stalin ruled because people feared him and people were to afraid to move against him. In siding with Stalin we created the cold war, we created communist China (because there was no counter balance post WW2 to all of the military aid flowing in from the USSR to aid Mao, Chiang Kai Shek didnt have that luxury and was relatively promptly defeated), Vietnam and Korean wars and thats just a few things that happend directly following the alliance of the “big 3” post WW2. Hitler was a monster there is no doubt about that, but Stalin was a monster on entirely different scale. Hingsight seems to agree with the opinion of both Winston Churchill and George Patton in late 1945,“give the Germans back their guns and lets take the fight to the real enemy the Soviets”. If that had of happend there would of been a bloody continuation of WW2 but we wouldnt have unreasonable communist China to deal with today and the cold war never would of happend (which cost 10s of millions of lives by proxy wars and deposing or installing dictators, ethnic cleansing etc)

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 10
  • 3
  • 28
  • 53
  • 8
  • 51
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

38
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts