Thread has become political and this is the General topic area.
Okay. say the Germans won the BotB.
Didn’t Hitler throw virtually everything(including Germany’s future generation) at the Western Front Allies in order to…
How did he plan to hold/support/push on the Eastern Front v Rooskies?
His goal even if achieved was faulty. In military terms it would have bagged half the Allied Army and prolonged the war. He had hoped it would have disrupted the core of the Anglo- American alliance because most of that newly captured army would have been British. The some of the generals of each side really hated each other and you’ll read in the account of the battle that Montgomery was nearly fired because of his ability to piss off the American generals Clark, Bradley and Patton. He also didn’t fair well with Eisenhower due to his inability to move his army and react to the German offensive. The possibility presented itself that if the plan succeeded the breach would have been “unrepairable” causing The British to say " we have had enough" and this may have allowed Hitler to find a negotiated peace. It was further postulated that the allies would join in and help fight the communists and push back the advancing Russian horde.
This was in the fertile mind of Hitler in the late fall of 1944. Somehow he felt that like with Frederick the Great before him, that the alliance bend on destroying germany would crumble at the doorstep of the Third Reich.
I agree with the above, but would also add that if (and they were not going to be able to do this) they could do a repeat of the 41 blitz through france and not allow another Dunkirk that it would free up troops to fight the Russians on the Eastern Front. At that point the Russians could have won the war w/o the English/Americans, but all this is counterfactual history anyway.
If Hitelr could have brought all his forcs from the west it still would have made no difference on the eastern front. They were too far behind. The Soviets were peaked in 44-45, while Germany peaked in 41.
I agree IL, that is just Hitler’s F’d up way of thinking. However, if in 41 he did not have to cover his ass in france (or even the token troops in N Africa, Norway, etc)… would the 6th army have been encircled if a few 100,000 german soldiers were there covering the flanks instead of a bunch of crap Romanian troops? A one on one war with Russia (which is what Hitler wanted) would have probably been a German victory (at that point).
Hitler was a corporal. It shows with how he led his military. His generals were the reason Germany went so far. The tactics are still used, unless you think the “hail marry pass” was not a blitz.
Many times Hitler went too far, but his generals provided him “miracles” which fed his ego that he was a great military comander. Eventualy the miracle well went dry and Germany lost the war.
Hitler was first and foremost a carismatic leader, but he was no military strategist, he should have let the generals do all the planning and focus on PR for Hitler.
(of course it was for the best that he lost)
Killing them jews is one hell of a PR move.
That has little to do with the Bulge campaign . Can you add something pertinent?
It was further postulated that the allies would join in and help fight the communists and push back the advancing Russian horde.
And after Hitler soundly trounced the Evil Allies…
Der Furor ( ) taught all der swein Amerikaners und der zilly Chamberlainers zat ze Reich vas Holy und der Commies Evil.
Then Hitler loaded all the ex-Allies on the trains…which ran on time…
und swooshed(Hitler invented “the swoosh”, not Nike) all the Neo-Nazis(former ex-Allies) to the Western Front.
Hitler - the orginal delusional Psycho-Crackhead.
Mussolini made the trains run on time. The rest of that made no sence… sorry.