If you had control of the German Army, where would u invade first?

Supposing Hitler gave you nearly complete control of the entire German army, airforce & navy on the eve of WW2, Where and What would you do on the eve of WW2?

if it were up to me...my first plan would be to send three army groups to simultaneously invade the surrounding countries to create a buffer zone.
Group A, composed of, lets say, 10 mechanised divisions and 5 infantry divisions, would invade Denmark, Holland, Luxembourg, and Belgium. This operation would be completed in 2 weeks.
Group B, composed of 21 infantry divisions, 13 mechanised divisions would invade Poland. The operation would be completed in 2 weeks.
Group C, composed of 12 infantry divisions, 5 mechanised divisions would capture the Czech Republic, Yugoslavia. All in 10 days for this operation.

Each Army group will be accompanied with at least 100 bombers, and 150 fighters.

Within 2 weeks, Denmark, Holland, Poland, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, and Yugoslavia would be captured!

and your plans or thoughts?

 

In reality some 56 German divisions took about a month to complete the Polish campaign. You have 33 to do the same job in two weeks - no freaking way. Not to mention that the effort was supported by pretty much the entire Luftwaffe, in your plan it would be split across numerous axis.

In short, I'd say your plan is wildly optimistic and unrealistic, severely underestimating the resistance offered by the different countries and the amount of territory involved.

Personally I wouldn't change too much about the initial conquests. The Germans needed to focus their strength at one opponent at the time, and did a good job of it up until 1941.

But it is certainly an interesting question!

[ 25. May 2005, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: Heartland ]

 

I'll turn them on Hitler and bring the damned Nazi plague to an end… but I guess all my armies would be very nazified by this time as well…

So, maybe I'll just lead them all to a clift in the North Sea…

 

There are several options, if one talks it in purely tactical terms, dismissing Hitlers political bent,namely his hate of the east. Perhaps cutting Poland in half, but allowing Joe to enter 1st, thereby making the claim to allies that occupation of west half of Poland is a buffer zone against further agrression from joe. This could possibly prevent England & France's declaration of war.

Perhaps a skirmish into baltic states would be next, Finland would join Germany, if Germany successful which they probably would have been against the poorly equipped Russians circa 39-40, then perhaps on to Sweden & Norway.

This would leave Germany in control of most of central europe & Scandinavia, minus Iceland & Denmark.

The question then becomes, would France & or England declare war over Norway?

& yes I know Joe would again become a problem 42-43. It is well known he had eyes on east europe, Romania etc.

 

I kind of agree with heartland that the conquests should go the way they basically happened. France and Britain would have had to decalre war at some point to try and stop Hitler's expansion. My change of direction would have been to not stop at Dunkerque as Hitler had ordered and keep the bulk of the british army as prisoners of war. Next I would invade the North African theater with the over whelming strength possesed by the german army at that time ( I'm not totally sure of the totals but I Believe they had around 2500 to 3000 aircraft at their disposal). Italy was having a rough time of it as you all know. This would have given Hitler valuable resources and would have taken out the bases of Gibraltar and given him control of the Med. The British would then literally be pushed onto their isle and isolated without a foothold anywhere to start operations from. Then finally take out the other countries like Yugoslavia, Greece, Poland and etc for a buffer zone. The last step would be to beat the Britsh isle into submission which was a very close call at one time. Even though the British possesed a strong navy they could not stop a full invasion and would probably suffer heavy losses as the German air force poundedthem from the air. Once the British were gone then build up my forces with superb equipment for a face off with Stalin.
Note: Hitler accomplished in 4 months what the Kaiser had failed to do in 4 yrs of WWI.

 

After my succesful two week operation, it would be the middle of September, only 2 weeks into the war!!! I would then suggest to Hitler to discuss with Mussolini a strategy plan in the Mediterranean theater. My initial suggestion would be to simultaneously seize key sites in Malta, Libya, Egypt, Crete, Libya, Gibraltar, Algeria, and Morocco. The seizure of these sites would prove invaluable to our conquest of the Mediterranean. The plan would work like this...
OPERATION: DESERT THUNDER!
An Italian Fleet composed of 30 destroyers and 6 battleships will envelope Malta, and Crete.
This fleet will be accompanied by 200 Italian bombers, and 200 Stukas, german bombers for each island.
I will have more plans to discuss but that's for later...

 

You've been smoking or snorting something.
Starting with the Western countries:

Belgium: Has 12 infantry divisions plus a number of cavalry regiments etc and just over 300 AFV. They also have over 100 aircraft of various sorts.

Holland: Given that a the equivalent of a corps and a half of German divisions barely took the country in 1940 it is unlikely that the one or two you allocate could manage it.

France: Declares war on you and enters Belgium right after you do. Their army is far larger than yours in 1939. They muster an airforce 6 times as large as what you commit and overwhelm your small fighter and bomber force. Note that you are also still using far more inferior aircraft too. The Me 109D is still in front line service (4 x 7.92mm paint chippers).

England: Declares war on you and begins to send large forces to the continent to reinforce France who has an army bigger than your own in 1939. Your U-boats have had no chance to do anything to slow Britain down at this point.

Yugoslavia: While you might take the country, everything you invaded with is now needed to hold it. The Hungarians are not too pleased with this turn of events either.

In the meantime, your forces in the West are bogged down in Belgium facing a French / Belgian / British coallition that is growing stronger far faster than your own forces are. You can't fall back to the West wall defenses, they barely exist in 1939. Since you only have 7 panzer divisions (one of which is really an ad hoc unit titled panzer division Kempf), three light divisions with a single tank battalion and about half-a-dozen motorized infantry divisions (with no tanks) along with like 50 or so infantry divisions about half of which have just been called up and are partially equiped with odds and ends types of equipment (Czech machineguns, WW I artillery etc) even what army you have is really not a match for all the Hornets you have stirred up. Since you also have only about 300 Pz III and IV tanks in service you are really going to be hard pressed to fight the French on the plains of Belgium. Note that you also have only half the "mechanized" divisions you list (and are not getting any more any time soon) with about double the number of leg infantry units you are going to have to do some rearranging of who gets crushed where and by what Allied army.

Poland: Since you invaded with about half of what was available originally you are now faced with the distinct possiblity that the war there might stalemate at least in the short run.

On the whole, two weeks into your war you are facing stalemate on every front. You have your forces scattered across two thirds of Europe and your enemies are more numerous and powerful than you. They simply can take their time cutting your pathetic little army to shreads.
The Luftwaffe is losing aircraft faster than the factories can turn them out while the British and French are actually gaining air strenght.

The Mediterranian isn't even a battlefield as Mussolini is smart enough to stay out of your disasterous little war. By 1942 you have been totally defeated. Thankfully, a good portion of the holocaust has been averted due to your poor generalship. No red trouser stripe for you!

 

I've gotta admit that the plan was out of enthusiasm and quite naive, not so much of extensive detailed planning. I'll give you that. I'm a poor general.
Oh well, I've got to rethink this plan. What do you suggest?

 

Blitzkrieg straight for the Caucuses,invade Norway, or help launch a massive joint Italian-German raid throught Egypt in to the Middle East. One simple reason is that I would want to secure some large strategic oil reserves.

 

There was not such overwhelming force. Without a Navy stronger and better than the RN at the Mediterranean, there's no way the Axis can kick the British from North Africa. The Italian Navy is relatively well-equipped and has good numbers, but it's a pathetic fighting force that doesn't stand a chance against the RN.

That's completely wrong. First, the Germans couldn't launch a seaborne invasion at all, since they didn't have the ships, landing craft, planes, experience, strategic thought or anything to do it (just look at what D-Day took to succeed).

The British won't be gone and Uncle Joe will just smash Hitler and kick his Austrian tight arse.

Yes: turn ALL Germany (and most of Europe) into ashes.

 

OOH good question! I would have put most of my reasources agianst England. If the army could have sucessfully taken GB then it would have gotten them out of the way. Next I would have put all of my might into Africa. Then "Leap Frog" from Afrika to South America.

 

i would make a peace treaty with poland and then go invade the netherlandes and belgium then france then i would invade great britian then go for denmark then scandanavia norway and then sweden then go straight for russia and last the afrika campain

 

You've missed out the USA, Australia and an invasion of New Zealand....

 

Stg44,

why a peace treaty with Poland when Hitler himself wanted Poland out of the "game" as soon as possible in 1939?

 

And how 'go straight for russia' if Poland's still in the way?

Or why Africa at the last? Who's there to fight? Wasn't Great Britain defeated in the first move?

 

Hitler already had a peace tready with Poland: The Polish-German Non-aggression Pact of 26 January 1934 which agreed to arbitration of differences in lieu of war for 10 years unless renounced 6 months in advance of hostilities.
Hitler reaffirmed this pact in a speech to the Reichstag on 30/1/37.
Polish aggressiveness in taking the Teschen industrial region of Czechoslovakia in October of 1938 put Hitler on edge with Polish relations. These worsened when a few weeks later the Germans demanded a solution to the Danzig corridor.
If Germany doesn't renounce their pact with Poland on 28 April 1939 it would have remained in effect.
Invading the Low countries (Holland and Belgium) would have surely brought the French and British into the war and resulted in a Western front stalemate similar to WW I due to the smaller size of the German military in 1939.
Invading Britian proper is an impossibility...literally. The Africa campaign is more a function of Italian intentions than German ones. Without Mussolini entering the war the Germans literally have no means to carry it out.
In this scenario, it is likely that the Soviet Union goes unattacked due to the stalemate in the West. Even if Germany wins in the West nothing major about the outcome of the war in Russia would likely change.
It would be recommended you spend much more time on scholarship before amending your scenario.

 

First, I would attempt a coup to overthrow Hitler. Assuming this works I would then create a full alliance with the Soviet Union. Secondly i would build up the army to have enough men to simultaniusly invade the low countries and poland at the same time. then i would conquer france by i estimate late 1940. In 41 I would do three things:

A: allow unlimited scientific production in hopes of creating an A-Bomb before America.

B: Pour all of my military might into Africa. If i would control the medditeranian sea, i would not have to worry about having the British invading italy.

C: Give Russia the needed tech and support to make the Red Army as strong as my army.

1942-

A: Have convince Stalin to invade Turkey and Iran while i build up my troops to take england.

B. Begin production on 2500 heavy bombers to bombard england with.

C. By consent or conquest, bring Hungary, Yugoslavia, southern Romania (give northern Romania to the Soviet UNion), Bulgaria and Greece under my control.

1943-

A: Assuming i am still not at war with the US continue production of heavy bombers and attempt a serous invasion of england late in the year or in 44.

B: assuming the Red army conquers Turkey and Iran with ease, convince stalin to invade Afganistan and India.

C: give some aid to japan to help break the stalemate in New Gunea and China

D: assuming i sucessfully win the afrikan campagin, roll through africa eventually assuming full control of the contenant late 43, or early 1944.

1944-

A: in spring have 150,000 soldiers invade northern england (this would be a suprise to Churchill because he would probably assume i would attack from france.

B: sometime in 44, the pressure of the Soviets in the west and the japs in the east i would think that india would be on the verge of collapse.

C: pour all of my reasources into the english campagin. with engalnd out of the way, all that will be left is the US and australia.

1945-

A: with japan nearing complete collapse in the pacific, i would attmept an invasion of South America and declare war on the US to take some of it's attention off of japan and towards me.

B: assuming India collapses in 1945, i would tell stalin to send as many troops as possible to invade western china to help japan.

C: assuming stalin agrees to B^^^, begin to ship the first of 7,500,000 soldiers for a sneak invasion of the Soviet UNion in '46.

D: still pouring the majority of my forces into england, i imagine it owuld collapse sometime in 45.

1946-

A: assasinate stalin early in the year creating a power struggle in the Soviet Union.

B: admist this power struggle invade the Soviet Union in late april or May. the primary goal of the invasion owuld me moscow at any cost

C: hopefully take moscow by october or november which would eventually lead to the fall of the Soviet Union some time in 1947

 

The problem here is that by the mid 30's most of the physists in Germany have already fled. The coup you suggest would have seriously disrupted German society for some time and no doubt delayed both projects in progress as well as the ability of Germany to persue a war plan.

Mussolini was never prepared to enter into a full alliance with Germany. Historically, Italy ran a "parallel" war with Germany. This is unlikely to change. Without the initial defeat of Italy in the Western Desert it is unlikely that the Wehrmacht would show any enthuisam for such a ventrue or the Italians any inclination to allow it.
For the Germans the Mediterrainian sea is a tremendous obstacle. They have no fleet there, no shipping to speak of and, no friendly unrestricted access. How exactly do you propose to move massive German units and supply them in Africa under those conditions? Rommel was barely able to supply 5 divisions at the Alamein position with no real interference to his logistical train. When interference from Malta stepped up with Montgomery's offenisve it proved impossible to maintain those units there.
Given the pathetic ability of the Heer / Wehrmacht to perform major engineering and construction projects, how do you propose to clear harbors, build infrastructure and, supply troops trying to move into the Saudi pennsula or deeper into Africa?

This way the Soviets can attack you all the more readily. Stalin was no friend of Hitler or Germany. Given the opportunity he would have sooner invaded Germany than act as an ally in any scheme Germany cooked up.

I suggest trying lots of vodka. If you get him stupid drunk it might help. But, then again, it probably won't.

Exactly what type of "heavy" bomber did you have in mind? Ju 290 / Me 264 sized? Do 217 / He 177 sized? If it is the former you are looking at something like 12 to 18 years to accomplish this. Junkers Dessau, the largest German aircraft plant could only make 2 to 4 Ju 290's a month.
Henkel had 30 He 177 pre-production aircraft ordered in 1939 when there was but a single prototype. The second prototype didn't fly until the middle of 1940. The first pre-production model flew in May 1942. So, you are again looking at somewhere in the 50's to meet your goal.
For the Do 217 the story is similar. Prototypes by 1940, production late in 1941 and, then a rate of a few aircraft a month thereafter. You are years from realizing this goal.

Doable but, the Soviets are likely to not like your actions at all.

Ok, assuming the US isn't shooting, you still have no navy. So, no invasion. You have a mere fraction of the bombers you wanted and the RAF is still in the game causing losses that are at least as substancial as those you are giving them. Canadian and US aircraft production have completely outstripped your own and you are losing in the air both over Britain and Germany where the RAF has been improving its night bombing techniques steadily. The diversion of production to nightfighters, electronics and, flak has substancially hurt your bomber production program.

Yea, sure, and pigs fly too. The Soviets are unlikely to try any of this so long as you remain a threat in their rear....and as far as they are concerned you are exactly that.

They will need it since the US is crushing them in their Pacific War. Instead of only facing 35% of the US military the Japanese face 100% with predictable results. By the by, what do you propose to send them? Naval forces? You have none worth mentioning. Aircraft? You are running short in your war with Britain as it is. Tanks and artillery? How do you get them there? The Soviets are not likely to want you arming Japan with whom they have bad relations as it is. Then again, given the US crushing the Japanese what stops the Soviets from invading China in support of the US as an ally? This is a better option for them than going to war with Britian. Stalin was no dummy on such things. Let you (Germany) spin in the wind in a stalemate with Britian while gaining valuable resources and access to the sea in China. Sounds like a winner to me.

You don't win in Africa, you probably don't even get to go there. See the earlier stuff on this.

And how do you propose to invade with no navy or amphibious capacity? Also, what do you do against the British Army which is now as strong and well equipped as your own? And their air forces? You still haven't dealt them a death blow and are unlikely to ever do so.

More like, with the Japanese on the brink of surrender to the US (or having surrendered), China in the hands of the Soviets and a US backed Republican Chinese goverment, India is not threatened at all. The Soviets are now freed of a real threat in the East and mass in the West to prevent you threatening them. They also represent a real threat to Germany so you are forced to station massive troops in the East to prevent them invading. The statlemate with Britain continues. You have internal problems with partisans galore requiring massive garrison units across Europe.
Worse, the US has the atomic weapons and you don't. They have gotten sufficent information on the V-2 to go ahead with projects like the Convair MX-774 which has three times the range and twice the payload of the V-2. Worse yet, the US has now embarked on building an ICBM and has devoted so much more resources to this project that your efforts in the field are overwhelmed. You are looking at atomic armed missiles by the mid-50's. Likewise, the US has also embarked on a cruise missile program and is producing copies of your V-1 for testing (courtesy of Britain who gives up samples).
In addition, the US has the B-29 with the B-36 intercontinental bomber on the way. You have nothing comparable. The British also are getting jet technology help from the US and, should you, Germany start producing an effective offensive jet force you will once again be swamped by numbers from Britain and the US.

Anyway, you ignore the reality of politics and the absolute fact that what you do with Germany does not happen in a vacuum. Germany's enemies will react to each move in a more or less logical manner. In a modern war where economics are a vital function, Germany in the 1940's lacks the economy to fight a long war...period.

 

The beginning of WWII? I will call that 1939. For the most part there would be one big strategic change. I would tell the general to take all of the same objectives. Then I would keep my bloody fingers out of it! I wouldn't keep them from decimating the British Expeditionary Force (Spring 1940), I would not have backed a suck-up like Goring concerning his ability to overpower the the world with air power, so he would not have poorly influenced decisions. I would not have diverted the strategic elimination of the RAF to the politically motivated bombing(Summer-Fall 1940). Instead of supporting the Italian Army in a campaign that required long shipping supply lines I would have invaded Italy itself. This would have prevented splitting up my forces to support the inept Italian efforts in Africa and the rest of the Mediterranean areas(Fall 1940-1942).This would have prevented the delay of the well planned invasion of Russia to support Italy(Summer 1942). It also would have made one of Germany's best generals available for the land war in Europe, Field Marshall Rommel.

So here is what these decisions would have provided.
1. Loss of the vast majority of the British Expeditionary Force at the onset of the war. This would have done far more to demoralize the British than buzz bombs or the Blitz.
2. Concentration upon the RAF as the strategic target for the Luftwaffe would have given air superiority to the Germans. This would prevent the morale building British victory in the Battle of Britain. Between these first two occurances it is entirely possible that the British would have kept their noses out of the rest of the European conflict. Both of theses occured before the entrance of the USA into the conflict. A truce between Great Britain and Germany would have kept Churchill off of Rosevelt's back. If Britain had not been in conflict in Europe I don't think the US would have joined in. This truce or armastice with the British would have included the rest of the British colonies around the world, so when Japan attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor, I would break all alliances with Japan and let the British and Americans concentrate upon them.
3. Without the drain on resources presented by supporting the Italians, those same resources may have been able to occupy Italy and Sicily. Despite Italy's military claims they collapsed quickly enough on a lot of occasions and had to be bailed out by the Germans. I don't think this would have been an easy campaign, but without the extensive supply lines to Africa and the rest of the rim of the Mediterranean Sea I think it would have been within Rommel's capability.
4. The proper and timely invasion of Russia in the Summer of 1942 would have succeeded in taking Moscow instead of stalling at the gates. This success would have allowed the use of the Russian rail infrastructure to keep the Germans supplied and denied the same infrastucture to the Russians. Moscow was the hub of all Russian transportation lines from the East. The loss of the transportation hub would have crippled the Russian Army's ability to conduct the campaigns that evicted the Germans from Russia.This also would have provided the German war machine with a huge store of natural resources with which to continue to advance.

So, lets see, Britain and the United States leave me alone, Russia collapses after the loss of Moscow in 1942, I occupy France, Italy, Poland, Belguim, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Finland, Norway, the Baltic States, Yugoslavia, and at the very least, everything north of Turkey and west of the Urals. Nobody knows that I have systematically committed genocide upon the Jews and the Slavs. I can build up my industrial might and crush Great Britain later, but why bother? The amount of power that these holdings would provide would give me other ways to take possession of more territory without direct military conflict with their old colonial masters. The United States of America and Great Britain defeat the Japanese in short order preventing the need to develop and test those terrible atomic weapons. Killing off Stalin and the rest of his cronies prevent the powerful Asian Communist alliance between China and Russia from developing.

I WIN!

 

bigiceman, are you joking or something?