Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

As Germany, what would you have done in 1943?

Discussion in 'Eastern Europe February 1943 to End of War' started by dasreich, Jan 10, 2005.

  1. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    293
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Ironically, it appears that Hitler was more truthfull than many other politicians: he said in advance, quite frankly, what he was about to do. His offences were of different kind.
     
  2. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,044
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    I'm not sure I can buy that argument. Clearly the occupation of Czechoslovakia after the apparent Munich agreement scant months before led to Britain finally to draw a line in the sand (Poland) that it would not do for either Munich or the final complete occupation of the Czech Republic.

    A day late and a dollar short for the Czech people, but a definite change in British Foreign policy. They would now fight for the liberty of another people even though they could no more influence German actions against the target nation than they could during the Munich Crisis.


    This was a response to post 80, not 81. Sorry for any confusion. :)
     
  3. Oktam

    Oktam Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    2
    If the UK gave Poland to Hitler, then in all probability there wouldn't be a World War 2 as we know it. Hitler, now undisturbed with the prospect of a two-front war, would devote himself completely to the incoming conflict with the Soviet Union.
     
  4. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Yes becasue before Chamberlain thought he could trust Hitler after he discovered he could not.
     
  5. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    So Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia weren't enough, now Poland had to be ceded as well? How about France? Exactly how many countries should the Nazis have conquered before the world said enough is enough???
     
  6. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    293
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Iggs Ecktly!

    Europe dominated by Nazis would have been the end for England and France. In 1939 they had no other choice except to defeat Nazis at the battlefield, otherwise they would have ended as Nazi vasal states.
     
  7. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    No,Britain was fighting becauseAdolf attacked Poland,not because of the coup of Prague
     
  8. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    No,Neville always was distrustfull,especially to Hitler.
     
  9. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    But Britain gave a pledge to Poland after the occupation of Czechoslovakia. If he was distrustful why did he claim he had gained "peace in our time" At Munich Chamberlain thought Hitler was a man of his word, when he said no more territorial demands.
     
  10. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    Pledge to Poland was after the occupation of CZ,not because the occupation .
     
  11. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    Peace in our time = propaganda for the next elections
     
  12. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    My impression is that he wasn't saying that was what Britain should have done mearly what would have happened if they hadn't supported Poland. They certainly couldn't let Germany enjoy a clear victory over the Soviets but that wasn't likely to happen either.
     
  13. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,044
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    I would love to debate this issue of Britain, appeasement, pledges, and failure to confront Germany in 1938 in another thread, but in my opinion has very little to do with 'What would Germany do in 1943".

    Perhaps we would do well to get back on topic.

    Carry on!
     
  14. efestos

    efestos Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    26
    As in 1943 was self-evident thet the war was lost the better they could have done was surrender.

    A) Kill Hitler. B) Try to retreat from NA. C) Not defend Italy. Let them surrender. D) concentrate all your efforts on East: ALL ... take any panzer division in the west ... let the western allies to come. And try a separate peace with JS. (It wouldn't work)


    No one have said anything about the production policies neither the priorities of the development of new arms ...

    U - boote ... There is still no black may ... but some one could have think that the oil and the raw matirials were still arriving to GB as the Bomber Comand managed to took fire the German cities, the spitfires were even in the east front ... you're hampering the future landings in North of France -Europe that were the best that could hapen for the german population . A lot of rare metals were used in the alloys for the U boote .. that they desperately needed for the alloys for tanks ... and the Jumo 004.

    Etc.

    And Etc ...
     
  15. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    293
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    There is an aspect that shouldn't be neglected in making decisions to surrender based on hope that certain opponents would be more generous victors:

    The essence of Allies engagement in the World War wasn't to defeat Germans as a nation but to elliminate the Nazi region. Regardless, to whom Nazi surrendered, capitulation would have been the end of the Nazi regime. That is crucial. Denazification of Germany would have been carried out by any party in conflict. However, the only decent position would have been to insist on surrender to all Alied nations.

    Quite another subject Nazis had to consider was: what to expect from nations that they have decimated so relentlessly? Women, children, POWs ...

    For Nazis in 1943 it was an illussion to hope for merciful treatment from either side:

    Losses of the British Commonwealth untill 1943; dead, wounded, capture and missing:

    England................................514.993
    Canada..................................10.422
    South Africa............................12.625
    British-India,Hongkong, Singapore......101.979
    British colonies .......................30.829
    Killed.................................315.948

    American losses from 7 December 1941 to mid 1943:

    Killed........14.594
    Wounded.......20.490
    Missing.......33.625
    Captured......19.873


     
  16. efestos

    efestos Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    26
    The Nazis killed millions of Russians yet in its first year. His behavior in the Ost front was simply brutal. The British and Americans may not be willing to be "nice" but at least they were democracies. The behavior of the Soviets in their civil war, in Ukraine ... in the two Poland invasions (especially after the discovery of the Katyn graves) left no doubts which "conqueror" was preferable.

    In the Desert both sides respected the Geneva convention .

    One question. In january 1943 ... was still possible to save many men in Stalingrad.?
     
  17. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,108
    Likes Received:
    1,575
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    I wonder what would have happened if the Germans had treated the Poles, the Belarussians, the Ukrainians, well instead of being ruthless? Most Ukrainians (for example) welcomed the Germans as liberators when they first appeared. Might they not have raised large armies from those former Soviet territories? They might also have moved much of their armaments industry to employ these people and put it out of reach of UK based bombers.

    That's alternate history, I know. Yet, if they had taken a lesson from the British empire they might have still have exploited those territories without completely disaffecting the local population. I think the Ukrainians in particular were ripe for recruitment into the anti-Soviet cause. They might not have been totally loyal to the German cause, but they had their own reasons to fight the Soviets. There were 40 million Ukrainians so they might easily have contributed 5 million soldiers. They might have got another 1 or 2 million from Belarus.

    The Germans sowed the seeds of their own destruction.
     
  18. von_noobie

    von_noobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    73
    Have to agree, While it is more of a what if (one that I'm tempted to make a thread on if there isn't any already) it does make an important point that much of the Russian territory they had captured contained citizen's that viewed the Germans as liberator's, They could easily have gained the support of the people though any benefit in production is unknown by me, I'm pretty sure it has been discussed in past and that it would still take a few years to get any results.
     
  19. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    293
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    But Nazi objectives were different; they weren't looking for allies in the USSR but for a land deprived from its original inhabitants. A document prepared by the Nazi "Economic Staff East, Agricultural Group" on 23 May 1941, states:

    To illustrate suffering of Ukraine and Byelorussia under Nazi ocupation, here is a passage from Alexiyevich's book War's Unwomanly Face:
    In 1941 Nazis have barbarized the warfare at the east to an unimaginable extent and in 1943 they couldn't count on support from local population. Quite in contrary, with the tide of Soviet troops advancing westwards, the uprising against the aggressors has just intensified.

    You can read more on this subject here: http://www.ww2f.com/eastern-europe/55758-german-occupation-ukraine.html
     
  20. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    I would suggest Tooze "wages of destruction" Germany had a dilemma, it needed both labor and food, but it did not have enough food to support the population of western Russia so letting them starve was the solution. The result was how ever that Germany realized it needed the manpower of western Russia in order to expand its production. Germany's great weakness was that its agriculture was still about 20 years behind that of the US and lacked mechanization for most farms. Gemany was as backward as the Soviets in Agriculture.
     

Share This Page