Would this strategy have won the war for Germany?

[ljadw]

Hi Toretta13,

You write, "I am PASSIONATE about World War II, and love thinking about how I would have advised Hitler to defeat the British before America entered the war."

Why would your passion for WWII lead you to concentrate on this?

Wouldn't it be more productive to think about how you would have advised the Anglo-French to defeat Nazi Germany early, thereby preventing tens of millions of people getting killed?

Perhaps your "passion" is for Nazi Germany rather than WWII?

Personally, I think a Mediterranean strategy in 1940-41 was Germany's best hope, but it should be remembered that the Royal Navy had a stranglehold over Spanish food and oil imports from Latin America and the availability of food to Spain in 1940-41 and infant mortality levels were actually worse than they had been during the civil war. Franco knew this only too well. Are Spanish lives of no consequence? Or are the Spanish just to be expendable cannon-fodder for Nazi ambitions?

Cheers,

Sid.

But, a Mediterranean strategy would have been catastrophic for Germany .

[ljadw]

There were no common-held manoeuvres of German and SU armies,there was no common border between both countries .
Barbarossa did not postpone the occupation of Eastren Europe by the SU,it was the CAUSE of this occupation .
The Western Allies did not support financially Germany and the SU :they were trading with these countries.And,why should they not trade with these countries ?

The League was not a respected club :it was a club of rogue states,such as Mexico,Poland,Romania, Turkey,etc.....

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Alixanther,

There is no guarantee of anything in this life!

However, there is no doubt that German rearmament began from a much lower base, earlier and on a much larger scale than its early Western opponents. Therefore it is a reasonable supposition that the earlier war occurred, the more relatively disadvantaged Germany would be.

It was proactive German policy that introduced the USSR unopposed into a large swathe of Eastern Europe in 1939-40. It was a failure of German policy that introduced the Red Army into the rest of Eastern Europe in 1944-45. Either way, Nazi Germany carries the lion's share of responsibility for this development. It was only reversed by the victory of the Liberal Democracies at the end of the Cold War 45 years later.

You write of the Western Allies that "They fought that war because of self-preservation.....". And why not? I can think of no better justification!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Michael Kenny]

Germany's failed attack did not invited USSR to occupy Poland, Romania, parts of Finland, all Baltic countries, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and so on. Germany attack, on the contrary, POSTPONED the occupation of these countries which would have come EARLIER if USSR were left unchecked, as they were by the Western Allies, both before Barbarossa and after WW2 aftermath...

The usual righ-wing excuse making and a way for them to try and shake off the baggage of Hitler and position themselves as the saviours of western civilisation. The reverse is true. The policy of the very right-wing facist Nazi Germany devastated europe and plunged it into chaos. It was all the fault of Germany.

It's a blatant lie to pretend that the Western Allies cried songs of desperation because Eastern Europe was under Soviet occupation. They declared war because of Poland and yet they let it slip alongside all other countries occupied by the communist juggernaut.

The Allies made no promises to Eastern Europe. The 'promise' to Poland was to preserve and pyhsical country called Poland. They did do that. It might not be the same Poland that existed in 1939 but last time I looked it was still on the map and in possesion of a great tract of former German land. I say that was a 'promise' the Allies kept.

I take personal indignation if you preach me Western moral superiority after what has been done.

One can only wonder why so many of your fellow citizens in 'Eastern Europe' are clamouring to be allowed into the EU if it is such a morally bankrupt place. ......

[Steve]

Turning the Mediterranean into a German lake would not have solved the strategic dilemma that Hitler thought he faced in 1941. Britain would not make peace and eventually it would link up with the USA. When fighting in the west against this alliance Germany would be dependent on the USSR for raw materials and so open to blackmail. There was also the possibility that Stalin would launch an attack while Germany was committed in the west. The solution to the problem was not to march into the Middle East and Africa but to remove the USSR from the game. Hitler thought this could be done in a few months. The UK would then perhaps make peace but if not he could fight a war in the west with confidence.

The UK thought Hitler would move through Turkey into the Middle East in 1941. This explains why they encouraged a coupe in Yugoslavia which they must known would have dire consequences for that county. It also explains why they were keen to move into Greece knowing that it would provoke a German invasion. If Germany could be tied up in Yugoslavia and Greece it would delay the attack on the Middle East. UK intelligence was quite late in coming round to the idea that Hitler intended striking at his partner in crime Stalin.

[Alixanther]

Hi Alixanther,

There is no guarantee of anything in this life!

However, there is no doubt that German rearmament began from a much lower base, earlier and on a much larger scale than its early Western opponents. Therefore it is a reasonable supposition that the earlier war occurred, the more relatively disadvantaged Germany would be.

It was proactive German policy that introduced the USSR unopposed into a large swathe of Eastern Europe in 1939-40. It was a failure of German policy that introduced the Red Army into the rest of Eastern Europe in 1944-45. Either way, Nazi Germany carries the lion's share of responsibility for this development. It was only reversed by the victory of the Liberal Democracies at the end of the Cold War 45 years later.

You write of the Western Allies that "They fought that war because of self-preservation.....". And why not? I can think of no better justification!

Cheers,

Sid.

"Proactive German policy"? So it was Germany's fault for Soviet occupation of Baltic States, Finland and Bessarabia? Instead of the Western Powers which gave USSR a blank cheque, after not declaring war unto them when they invaded Poland too???? If USSR would have been declared war by Britain and France, I doubt the Soviet would still invade, they'd be busy preparing for the defensive, if mister Roosevelt really comes to the rescue of the democracies. Oh, and if the Western Allies are still unable to mobilise "earlier" - as you claim - then what's the (futile) point of your claim??? How could they mobilize earlier, if they're practically unable to do so??? Either they can - which renders them guilty for not reacting properly and in time, or they cannot - then your thesis is competely useless.

[toque]

U.S. was even more racist than Germany at the time, they'd never use A-bomb on Europe.

I recall it being admitted a few years ago that the US had prepared plans for the bombing of British cities had the Cold War turned hot, and that country been occupied by the Warsaw Pact.

I have no doubt that the US would have used a nuclear weapon in Europe, had it suited.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

A lot of posts were removed. Keep it civil, or this thread will be locked.

[ljadw]

There was nothing valuable for Germany in the ME/Mediterranean;a German commitment in this region would be a wast of means .

[BDV]

There was nothing valuable for Germany in the ME/Mediterranean;a German commitment in this region would be a wast of means .

It all depends on how many resources the opponent (GB) can be made to dedicate to the theater. Hence the critical early July 1940 Schicklgruber-Benito "we hang together or we hang separately" meeting that never happened.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Since my previous warning was ignored, this thread is now locked.