I would be aiming for a German victory in WWI, the Allies had their chance and screwed up.
A German victory in WW1 would be ideal here, but I believe that you wouldn’t need to bring and weapons back with you, just a history book, and point to the few mistakes Germany made and say, “ok, now don’t do that, do this instead”.
If I had to choose a weapon though, i’m kinda torn. On the one hand, bringing back the StuG III would be great to help the Germans break the dead lock without a doubt, but I wonder how well German industry could support them once they went into action, long enough to break the front? Maybe. On the other hand, if I were to bring back the MG42, I know that German industry could support and and keep these weapons running, meaning longer usage and a greater chance of this weapon tipping the balance for a German victory.Â
Awesome points, the MG 42 would have shredded Allied ranks between the lines.
Part of Hitler’s Götterdämmerung, but lost on me.
It was the capital!
Budapest and the West be damned: stop the enemy at the gates(back door).
I have read two books on Berlin(10+ years ago) and need to reread them, but they sadden me.
I don’t think it’s really plausible that any of the three major Axis powers would have been able to launch an invasion of mainland America large enough to actuallyhewould not have gained ground against the Americans fighting on their own turf. While the German army may have matched that of the United States, their navy was in no way ready to launch any amphibious invasion, especially one of the scale requited to attack the US. Italy… let’s just say I couldn’t see Mussolini walking into the white house.
Most likely, if the Axis were able to overhwelm all of the other allies, a cold war would develop between the US and Germany/Japan (and maybe even between the axis themselves) and all sides would race to develop defenses and nuclear weapons.
If any axis takeover of washington was to take place, it would be a result of either a revolution within the US or (less likely) an invasion by Mexico and other Central/South American countries supported by the Axis. Germany would likely send another Zimmerman letter, but this time would provide actual support. Although by this point, with the US in possession of nuclear weapons, i doubt and invasion would take place.
i have to strongly disagree with zhukov here.
its not insane to attack the russians.
americans were the only ones with the bomb. japan wouldnt want to get bombed again, and russia could give japan NO support.
american could begin daily bombing runs again on all modes of russian factory output.
plus add nuclear devastation to many key soviet cities and to whole armored divisions.
Nations committing such acts will get retribution in kind, sooner or later. Russia as a state might surrender, but the atomic bomb alone wouldn’t destroy communism completely, and eventually communists (all over the globe) would find a way to respond.
Truthfully I consider it insane to use the atomic bomb at all. Unless it is against aliens.
OK now that someone is not grapping my attention thanks for the kind thank yous. Me doing this kind thing from time to time keeps my ex alive. Sir Basil was 22 when Plan 1919 was concieved. He wasn’t yet the military theorist he would become. Though as brilliant as Hart was he was well on his way. Too bad the Brits didn’t work more with him when they put him in charge of mechanizing their Army in 1937.
Another thing most people don’t know about the development of blitzkrieg is the impact Napoleon had. He didn’t have tanks so his concentration of force can in the form of artillery. Instead of shooting at the entire line like everyone else did Bonaparte massed his barrage on one point. When the men there crumbled an attack aimed at that point would begin. Punch through, roll up the lines, head to the tent for a stiff drink. This basic tactic was studied by the men who made blitzkrieg a household word around the world.
How to win it in late 41… good one.
To begin with I would kill corp. Hitler. That dumb ass got Germany in the predicament it was in in the first palce.
That being said you keep pushing on Moscow because the logistics of moving troops is what killed Germany. Is the Caucus a better objective - yes. But Corp. Hitler didn’t figure that out until it was too late. Germany may not have gotten the same fruits of capturing the oilfields (which should have been their major objective in 41), but they would have taken Moscow which was the locomotive hub of the USSR (not to mention, the capital.
The logistics of transferring the troops was a stupid play at that point. He should have kept the focus on Moscow and broke them there, than take his Moscow forces and move them where they needed to go. At all 3 Russian fronts Corp. Hitler never won… because when he had overwhelming force he never finished the fight.
WW2 history is kind of funny in that you think “thank god Hitler was so crazy that he lost the war”, but at the same time it is also “how did this crazy person get in charge in the first place?”
….and the slaughter of Indians during 1800 was not pointless and unjust ?
The slaughter of Indians in the 1800s does not justify American intervention during WWI. Allied victory in WWI did not make the world a better place. It did not result in self-determination, the end of militarism, or any of the other idealistic principles for which Woodrow Wilson said he’d fought. Its main short-term effect was to allow France to exact a petty, unjust, cruel revenge against Germany for its victory in the Franco-Prussian War. The longer term consequence was to rob Central and Eastern Europe of its ability to resist Soviet invasion. According to former Soviet intelligence operative Suvarov, the main reason for the Spviet Union’s invasion of Poland in 1919 was the desire to continue on into Germany. Germany was weak, disarmed, and (in 1919 - '20) largely communist anyway. The German people had been partially radicalized by the famine conditions the Allies had created.
Fortunately, that particular Soviet invasion failed, due to the courage of the Polish Army, and due to the fact the Soviet Union was still in a state of civil war. But a disarmed Germany could not forever escape Soviet occupation. Germany’s only long-term hope was to elect a right wing leader–a militarist–who would match the Soviet military buildup with a strong military of his own. Unfortunately, the political circumstances the Allies created in the afermath of their victory were such that only a radical leader would throw off the unjust Versailles Treaty and seek to return Germany to a position of strength. It’s deeply unfortunate that the particular militarist Germany chose was a rabid anti-Semite and anti-Slav. Had WWI resulted in a tie or an Axis victory, Germany would presumably been able to maintain a strong military presence in the post WWI era without politically radicalizing itself. That combination (a strong German military and no radical anti-Semitism) would have yielded better long-term results than anything one could expect from the Allied victory.