you will never convince me that Germany could not have won this war

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Torretta13
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: 30 Nov 2007 01:44
Location: MI

Re: you will NEVER CONVINCE ME that Germany could NOT have won this war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Torretta13 » 16 Apr 2016 03:41

An excerpt (posted under the de minimus exception to copyright law AND posted with permission of the author) from Bevin Alexander, who knows more about military history and strategy than ALL OF YOU PUT TOGETHER!!!:

[Erich] Raeder [chief of the German Navy] felt that the senior army generals had a "purely continental outlook," did not understand the war-winning opportunities that had opened up on the south shore of the Mediterranean, and would never counsel Hitler correctly. Although the OKH and OKW did advise Hitler to send troops to North Africa, their proposals lacked Raeder's urgency. Never did Brauchitsch, Halder, Jodl, or Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, chief of staff of the OKW, express the conviction that the war could be won in the Mediterranean, although Keitel told Benito Mussolini that capture of Cairo was more important than capture of London. Part of their hesitancy lay in the knowledge that Hitler had been fixed for a long time on destroying the Soviet Union and gaining Lebensraum for the German people. Their careers depended upon not rocking that boat. However, they never stressed to Hitler, as did Raeder, that victory in the Mediterranean would make it easier, in the end, to achieve victory over the Soviet Union.

Once Axis forces overran Egypt and the Suez Canal, they would close the eastern Mediterranean to the Royal Navy. The British fleet would immediately retreat into the Red Sea, because it could not be supplied sufficiently by means of convoys through the western Mediterranean. Whether or not the Germans seized Gibraltar by a direct attack---and this was virtually excluded because of [Spanish dictator Francisco] Franco's opposition--- Britain strategically would be paralyzed.

The Axis could move at will into the Middle East, for the British had no substantial forces there. Thus, not only would Syria and Palestine fall, but German panzers could seize Iraq and Iran with little effort. These two countries produced much of the world's oil, and their capture would provide ample amounts of Germany's single most-needed strategic material.

The advance on the southern frontier of Turkey would put the Turks in an impossible position. Hitler was already in the process of gaining Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria as allies. Therefore, Turkey could be approached either by way of Bulgaria across the Bosporus at Istanbul or from northern Iraq and Syria. Turkey would be forced to join the Axis or grant passage for Axis forces and supplies. A defiant stance would result in the swift defeat of the Turkish army and disaster.

Passage through Turkey would reduce the importance of Malta and Gibraltar. However, both could be eliminated without the active support of Franco and without direct assault.

German forces could easily occupy French North Africa ( Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia) with or without Vichy France's cooperation. From French Morocco, they could approach from the south the small strip of Morocco along the Strait of Gibraltar ruled by Spain. Spain would be forced to grant transit rights, or stand aside if German forces occupied the strip without permission. Spain could not resist for fear of a German attack into the heart of Spain from France. Consequently, German airfields and batteries could be set up along the south shore of the strait. This would close it to Britain---without an expensive military assault on the rock of Gibraltar.

Furthermore, closing the Strait of Gibraltar would force the British to abandon Malta, because they could not supply it.

With the Royal Navy out of the Mediterranean, it would become an Axis lake. This would permit German forces to occupy all of western Africa, including the French base at Dakar, in Senegal. Aircraft, ships, and submarines from Dakar could close down much of Britain's convoy traffic through the South Atlantic, even without seizure of the Cape Verde islands.

In the Middle East the strategic payoff would be even greater. German forces in Iran would block that country as a route for supplies to the Soviet Union from Britain and the United States. Russia would be left with only the ports of Murmansk on the Barents Sea and Archangel on the White Sea through which goods from the west could be funneled. This would require dangerous passages in atrocious weather, with constant danger of attacks by German ships and aircraft stationed in Norway.

Even more important, the Soviet Union's major oil fields were in the Caucasus and along the western shore of the Caspian Sea, just north of Iran. Germany could threaten not only an attack directly from Poland and Romania in the west but also from the south through the Caucasus to the Soviet oil fields. This danger of envelopment and quick loss of oil would immobilize Stalin, and obligate him to provide Germany with whatever grain and raw materials it might need. In other words, Germany---without loss of a single soldier---would have the benefits of the Soviet Union's vast materials storehouse, as well as delivery of tin, rubber, and other goods from southeast Asia by way of the Trans-Siberian Railway.

A German position in Iran also would pose a huge threat to India, agitating for independence under Mohandas K. Gandhi and other leaders. From Iran Germany could invade India through the Khyber and other passes, invasion routes long before and long after Alexander the Great made the passage in 326 B.C. Germany would not actually have to do a thing. The threat alone would force Britain to commit every possible soldier to defend its crown jewel. Germany, again without the expenditure of a single man, could immobilize Britain.

In possession of the Middle East, all of North and West Africa, and Europe, its armed forces virtually intact, its economy able to exploit the resources of three continents, Germany would be virtually invincible. Britain's defiance on the periphery of Europe would become increasingly irrelevant. Germany would not have to inaugurate an all-out U-boat war against its shipping. Britain's remaining strength would have to be expended in protecting its empire and the convoys to and from the home islands.

The United States would have no hope of launching an invasion against the mainland of Europe and an undefeated and waiting German army until it had spent years building a vast navy, army, and air force, not to speak of the transports, landing craft, vehicles, and weapons necessary for such a giant undertaking. It is possible that the United States would take on this task, but the chances for its success would be extremely small. Far more likely, the American people would turn first to counter the expansion of Japan in the Pacific.

Meanwhile Germany could consolidate its empire, bring subject nations into an economic union, and grow more powerful economically, militarily, and politically every day. Before long, the world would become accustomed to the new German Empire and insist on a return to normal international trade.

This at last would give Hitler the opportunity he had sought for decades. He never wanted more of the Soviet Union than the region west of the Ural mountains. Once a de facto cease-fire had been achieved, Hitler could strike at European Russia from south and west, drive Stalin and the surviving Soviets into Siberia, and get the Lebensraum he coveted.


line
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 07 Apr 2016 09:50
Location: Belarus

Re: you will NEVER CONVINCE ME that Germany could NOT have won this war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by line » 16 Apr 2016 05:14

There were more serious causes of the war than the oil fields. 11 July 1942 11 Manstein's Army was to launch an offensive in the Caucasus. Hitler sent her under Leningrad. In January 1943, 17 army of 400 thousand people remained on Hitler's orders to idle at Taman. By participating in the battles in the Ukraine might be more useful. With 17 army,the Germans would have taken Stalingrad in March 1943.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 906
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: you will NEVER CONVINCE ME that Germany could NOT have won this war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by pugsville » 16 Apr 2016 05:55

“The line between disorder and order lies in logistics…” - Sun Tzu

another thread that starts with the complete dismissal of logistics. well logistics matter

Walter Ellis is not familiar with the fundamental logistics of the North african campaign.

'The Eighth Army could not have been supplied or reinforced, except through Suez. Rommel’s Afrika Korps would have increased remorselessly in numbers and equipment, meaning that the Battle of Alamein, if it was ever fought, would have resulted in a German victory.'

Well the eighth army was entirely supplied (except for a couple of convoys) via the Suez. really this is basic fact of the campaigning North Africa which proponents of the southern Mediterranean constantly and repeatedly just overlook completely.

the fall of gibraltar would be a blow to British prestige but would have very very little effector on the battle for north africa, the axis would not have any increased logistical capacity, there were unable to logistically support the troops they had in North africa. taking Gibraltar would be nothing, zip, nada to
support more troops in north african. and it would also do nothing, nada ,zip to decrease the logistical support and troops the allies were able to sport in North Africa, as it all came around Africa trough the Suez anyway.

and yes British naval that struck Taranto came from Alexandra not gibraltar (ellis is just sloppy)

attacking Spain will have drawbacks elsewhere, the axis gain gibraltar but the Spanish island in the atlantic will be taken and provide very good bases for the British increasing areas covered by aircraft in the war against U-boats.

taking Spain is difficult, the pyrenees are a significant obstacle, and the german occupation zone gives only a tiny area to attack from, and poor railways to build up the attack force, sure the Spanish are nota huge or well equipped army, but the German campaigns not without problems if they are going to force it upon the Spanish. only a very small part of theGerman army can attack through the narrow occupation zone. of course the germans could invade and occupy vichy France, but that would throw french north Africa and Syria into he allied camp, rapidly resulting in the complete conquest of axis north Africa.


so there is no reason to thing tat taking gibraltar would result in significantly better axis results in North Africa. but even if the suez is taken is a very very long way from there to the oil on the Persian gulf.

even after overcoming all the obstacles and getting the Persian gulf (a very long distance from the suez with all sorts of logistical problems against the British who have plenty of logistical bases in the middle east) how the hell are the Germans going to get any oil to Germany? hmm they don't have many takers and the numerous allied bases (aden, india) would make sinking them easy as the axis have pitiful escort craft. and the railways simply do not exist. and waiting while they are built would take years.


logistics matter. amateurs study tactics professionals study logistics.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: you will never convince me that Germany could not have won this war

Post by South » 16 Apr 2016 10:41

Good morning Torretta 13,

Re: "Greatest war machine which the world has EVER SEEN [sic]";

Napoleon's Grande Armee and Lincoln's US Army were akin to the Spanish Foreign Legion ?

Was not aware the Trans Siberian Railroad was immune to destruction if USSR forces lost control of the pertinent lines of communication.

In re German Admiral Erich Raeder's.......at least as to what author Bevin Alexander presents......"The United States...until it had spent years building a vast navy, army, and air force, transports,...weapons";

The United States had already started rearmament. FDR kept much secret to minimize the isolationist political factions. Many of us AHF participants already posted the numbers of aircraft, etc, etc.

"the American people" do not make US war policy. Congress does.

Look at German monetary policy and Berlin's monetary resources - and Germany's position on the world scene.

I might be conceding that you can't be convinced.

Warm regards,

Bob

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23567
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: you will never convince me that Germany could not have won this war

Post by David Thompson » 16 Apr 2016 20:22

Several shouting posts from Torretta13, containing low forms of speech, a polemical rant, and derogatory cultural slang, were removed. A review of the rules should give posters a better idea of what we're looking for here.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011 18:02

Re: you will never convince me that Germany could not have won this war

Post by steverodgers801 » 17 Apr 2016 05:27

Spain served well in helping Germany acquire resources until 1943. Attacking Spain would only drain German manpower and resources even more and it would not force Britain to quit. Shipping already went around Africa.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011 18:02

Re: you will never convince me that Germany could not have won this war

Post by steverodgers801 » 17 Apr 2016 05:29

Hitler could have reinforced Rommel if he had really wanted to, but he didn't. Even if Egypt was taken it would not have been a fatal blow, and Germany could not have moved on with out taking men from the east front and supplying them would have been an impossible task.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11972
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: you will never convince me that Germany could not have won this war

Post by ljadw » 17 Apr 2016 18:54

I must say that I am not convinced that Bevin Alexander knows more than we : one exemple is the story of the importance of the Middle East Oil : Iran and Iraq did not produce much of the world oil,but only a small part of it and I don't see how this oil could benefit Germany as there were insoluble production,refinery and transport problems and as ( what will surprise a lot of people ) Germany was not short on oil .

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4760
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: you will never convince me that Germany could not have won this war

Post by OpanaPointer » 17 Apr 2016 19:02

ljadw wrote:I must say that I am not convinced that Bevin Alexander knows more than we : one exemple is the story of the importance of the Middle East Oil : Iran and Iraq did not produce much of the world oil,but only a small part of it and I don't see how this oil could benefit Germany as there were insoluble production,refinery and transport problems and as ( what will surprise a lot of people ) Germany was not short on oil .
This. The Germans had commandeered 248 of the 256 Danube River oil tankers to transport oil from Romania to Germany.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

randwick
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: 23 May 2006 22:08
Location: randwick

Re: you will never convince me that Germany could not have won this war

Post by randwick » 18 Apr 2016 00:46

.
For Germany to win the war (world war 2 ?) Barbarossa would have to succeed .
There was nothing wrong with the strategy , the elimination of the only continental threat in Europe and access to a cornucopia of resources .
it would make the British little more than an annoyance while the US ,not at war yet ,would have had some serious soul searching about intervening.


The crux of the problem was could it be done ?,
destroying the Soviets forces in one campaign and capturing the bulk of their war fighting assets,
men , food , industries , communications and resources .
Undertaken when the Wehrmacht had the greatest relative power,the Generals certainly though it could be done

it came close , during the whole of 1941 the soviets lurched from one disaster to another
the first week of the war saw Stalin mentally on the ropes , by august the RKKA had been smashed ,
by the end of October the Germans had vaporized the fresh forces in front of Moscow , the city was racked with panic riots

what saved them was an ability to keep the will to fight ,Germany logistical problems ,the astounding success of the evacuation of some of the war industries ,having a leader of great administrative competence possessing and using an apparatus of total ruthlessness ,
and a serie of hotly discussed military and political decisions .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11972
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: you will never convince me that Germany could not have won this war

Post by ljadw » 18 Apr 2016 05:53

OpanaPointer wrote:
ljadw wrote:I must say that I am not convinced that Bevin Alexander knows more than we : one exemple is the story of the importance of the Middle East Oil : Iran and Iraq did not produce much of the world oil,but only a small part of it and I don't see how this oil could benefit Germany as there were insoluble production,refinery and transport problems and as ( what will surprise a lot of people ) Germany was not short on oil .
This. The Germans had commandeered 248 of the 256 Danube River oil tankers to transport oil from Romania to Germany.
This does not mean that Germany was short on oil, it indicates only the relative importance of the Romanian oil : til the summer of 1944 there were no production problems that hindered German operations .There were transport problems not production problems.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4760
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: you will never convince me that Germany could not have won this war

Post by OpanaPointer » 18 Apr 2016 11:29

Yeah, I was indicating that Germany was moving a poo-poo load of oil from Romania.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: you will never convince me that Germany could not have won this war

Post by South » 18 Apr 2016 12:08

Good morning Randwick,

Re: "Nothing really wrong with the [Ge] strategy";

"Nothing" is an absolute term. German planners knew about the presumptions......and, realisticly enough, the rebuttals.

The UK was devastated by the Great War but it was still more than a police department.

The United States ALREADY completed soul-searching about intervening. Note the initials "FDR".

In FDR's message to Congress 28 Jan 38 (Repeat: 1938), he spoke of: '"beginning of a vast program of rearmament".

The Munich Agreement was 30 Sept 38.

The 14 Nov 38 White House conference was triggered by the Munich Agreement. It had be argued that the anti-FDR isolationists in Congress and the media had their initial large defeat traced to the Munich Agreement.

In a message to Congress on 12 Jan 39, FDR urged rearmament. This triggered the Joint Army-Navy Board in May 39 to develop the RAINBOW Plans. RAINBOW'S 5's theme was "sending forces...Europe...to effect the decisive defeat of Germany or Italy or both". RAINBOW 5 was enlarged at the expense of the others (actually the others were easier to accomplish by FDR Administration).

"During the whole of 1941", another absolute expression, I am sure Soviet planners witnessed and accepted the 7 December 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, as the opposite of a disaster for Moscow.

All the political I&Ws - indicators and warnings - were present for a global confrontation.


Warm regards,

Bob

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11972
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: you will never convince me that Germany could not have won this war

Post by ljadw » 18 Apr 2016 12:45

OpanaPointer wrote:Yeah, I was indicating that Germany was moving a poo-poo load of oil from Romania.

Wrong argument: the biggest German oil supplier was Germany itself, not Romania : between 1940/1945, Germany supplied almost 30 million tonnes of oil, Romania only 10 million .

In 1939 Germany imported 5.1 million ton, of which 1.6 million from Romania; in 1940 it imported only 2.2 million ton of which 1.3 million from Romania .The import from Romania was going down by 20 %, the import from the other sources (mainly US and Latin America ) decreased by 75 %, and ....Germany did not collaps . Germany used oil tankers because the railways could not transport the oil . That has nothing to do with the importance of the Romanian oil .

Besides, I like to know what the direction was of these tankers : were they using the Danube to go to Germany or were they going to Italy ,using the Mediterranean ?

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”