Top 5 biggest mistakes

And what happens if Goering didn't shift to cities? The RAF wasn't close to capitulating. The Germans were plagued with poor intelligence, they were actually much further from destroying the RAF then they believed, and the British factories were producing Hurricanes and Spitfires faster than they could be destroyed. Not destroying British radar is also because of poor intelligence. They believed the radar stations to be underground and therefore took them off of their bombing list.

And how do they do this? (ie defeat UK)

Again I will say, how did the outcome war change because of this? Answer it didn't. Was Montgomery a commander in the field? Many things went wrong that were out of his control.

Do you really think the war would have been different if this adjustment had been made?

 

No, the war would not have ended differently. It might have lasted much longer, but in the end it would have ended with an ally victory.

There's really no point in even talking about it. Because no matter what Germany would have done at the begining, in the end the allies would have won no matter what. Eventually. so all were doing is speculating on what the axis could have down to extent the war by months or even years. But no more, because we already know they would eventually lose.

With that being said, stating that Hitler or Germany made mistakes by; shifting the bombing to cities rather than military installations because the allies bombed Berlin. or, made V2 rockets like mad, because he was mad, instead of concentrating on weapons that would actually help you win in the field instead of trying to win a civilan casualty contest, they could have continued winning much longer than they did. Attacked Russia before making sure that the UK was defeated. Serious mistakes that collectively cost them the war.


"And how do they do this? (ie defeat UK)"

Well, they had there chance to do it early. They stopped at Dunkirk instead of pressing the issue. Had the Germans been prepared (which they were not) to cross the channel and invade england, while at the same tme contniuing to attack thru the air with a sustained bombing campaign against MILITARY installations, instead of cities, they might have succeeded in extending the war much longer due to the need to recapture England before we could even think of crossing the channel.

This wasn't accomplished obviously, so attacking Russia without this being a done deal was certainly stupid, and reflects the thinking of a madman. A two front war against huge determined, industrial countries was a un-winable war.

Germany made some mistakes during the course of the war, this is a few of them. Do you not agree?

 

I dont agree with germany couldnt have done anything to win the war at all,had germany knocked england out of the war they would have won.

 

Once they attacked Russia and started a two front war against two huge nations whose industrial capabilities combined dwarfed that of Germany. It was inevitable, unless of course Russia or the US decided to give up and sue for peace for whatever reason, which we know would have never happened.

 

Are you really still promoting Sealion

 

Well sealion should have gone ahead but thats an arguement for a different day.

If germany had fought a one front war against the soviet union they would have won.
There would have been more men and oil available and no strategic bombing.
When you think of it germanys allies did a lot to lose germany the war,the italians by causing barbarossa to be delayed and japan for getting america involved.

 

I agree Germany could have defeated Russia in a one front war. Against only them. But not against both.

 

It was an argument for yesterday....http://www.ww2f.com/sacred-cows-dead-horses/32952-operation-sealion-unternehmen-seel-we.html

Even if Germany was to conquer Britain, they still need an occupation force, an occupation force means MEN, and lots of them. Their oil situation was far beyond repair, throughout the war Germany produced 33.4 millions of metric tons of crude oil, the USSR produced 110.6 millions of metric tons. I don't see why Torch doesn't happen, US troops landing from the US, that equals two fronts. The USSR still receives supplies form the US. The USSR stopped the Germans around Moscow before the US entered the war. This was not because of the "Russian Winter" but rather because of the German's poor planning, stupid mistakes made by the War Ordinance department, and inability to handle the logistics and civil engineering needed to wage a far reaching war. Now of course this is all based on the irrational belief that Britain could have been knocked out of the war. As for Italy delaying Germany 6 weeks, the fall and spring were both giving the Germans problems. I remind you that Guderian's panzer force was stopped at Tula and essentially put out of action on the road to Mtsenk by Katukov before the dreaded Russian winter. And just to get really technical, Japan didn't bring the US into the European war, Hitler did by declaring war on them.

 

I'm not going to get into sealion again because nobody'll accept each other opinions anyway.

All i'm saying is if england was taken out of the picture things would have been a lot easier for the germans in russia,
If the germans had to take england by force it would have delayed barbarossa for a year,which means the timeline of events would have been different so things like the delay at smolensk cant be considered in.
As for the oil the germans would have had all that north african oil.

The reason i say japan was bad for germany is because the germans probably wouldnt have declared war on the U.S.A. on dec 11 except for pearl harbour.
What did germany get from japan besides a new enemy to fight.

 

I made no comment about Smolensk, and I don't understand your point of bringing it up. The same problems that plagued the Germans in 1941 would still have been there in 1942. Except they would be facing a better prepared Soviet Army.

What North African oil? Look at this list, tell me what North African country you are referring to besides Vichy French Algeria?

http://middleeast.about.com/od/oilenergy/a/me090607d.htm

 

No,but you did bring up tula.
What you said about the russians being better prepared was true,that after all was what convinced hitler to switch bets and not invade england.

There was oil in egypt.
Landmines in the Desert Sand: Nazi Landmines Block Egypt's Access to Oil and Gas - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

 

Ok but as the article explains, it is not easily accessible because of the mines and shells, which would have been there even if the Germans had won. The bottom line is that Germany's situation in terms of resources was beyond repair, capturing Egypt would not have been enough.

 

Well put, that known oil in the mid-east and Egypt's little field would have NEVER aided the Nazi's shortages in the least. Look at the failure to get a single barrel of oil back from the two fields that they did manage to capture from the Soviets. Those fields weren't separated from the European mainland by the Med. either.

And refineries are notoriously easy to sabotage, see the NEI where the Japanese managed to capture the Dutch fields and refineries, but never got back to any where near 100% production until late 1944! By then they couldn't get the product home, nor use it locally because of their lack of shipping.

 

As far oil in the Middle East is concerned..... How would the Germans get it to Germany?

 

Nazi rocketeers??

...sorry Wolfy had to steal your joke there

 

Nice to see a sense of humor here.

 

This is nuts,ye are only trying to make simple things difficult.
i'm pretty sure the germans would have managed to think of something.

 

Some of these points were already addressed by Slipdigit. I would point out that hindsight is 20/20 and an earlier build-up of fleet submarines may have indeed sped up Japan's demise. Ultimately as Slipdigit pointed out, the fleet subs ended up being the most cost-effective and deadly arm of the USN. From FleetSubmarine.com is your source on World War II American submarines :

However, the US did not go into the war with a mindset of sinking merchant vessels. In fact, this was considered to be "wrong" and in direct conflict with the rules of war. At Dönitz' Nuremberg trial the USN was nervous about him being tried as a war criminal for unrestricted submarine warfare as that is exactly what they themselves ended up doing, as testified to by Admiral Nimitz. uboat.net - The Men - The Nuremberg Trials However, to suggest that this should have been their mindset from the get-go pre-supposes too much. I think the US' concept of "total war" was just getting underway at that time.

I believe somebody already mentioned that not addressing the defective torpedo issue early on was a big mistake and I certainly agree with that one. Another classic example of institutional bureaucratic idiocy. "We have a problem"/"No you don't!" :headbash: