Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
- cortodanzigese
- Banned
- Posts: 235
- Joined: 03 Jul 2009, 15:29
- Location: Danzig
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
Hitler's strategy up to 1941 was correct: he started the war in proper moment and knocked out almost all adversaries. I'd change only a few his decisions.
1.Send big expeditionary force to Africa in summer of 1940 and try conquer Malta, Egypt and Middle East, solving german oil problem.
2.In a contrary to east european jewry, don't touch zionist settlers in Palestine, but have them under administrative control.
3.This would enable to strike deal with the American Jewry: keep USA out of the war, for zionist project in Palestine going on.
4.German economy wasn't fully engaged in war production, and in 1939-41 still continued producing luxury and consumer goods. It was not rearranged to total armament production until january 1942, when Germany found herself in war with three most powerful nations on earth. I'd make Speer armaments dictator in January 1940.
5.The downfall of german aircraft production since 1940, contributed much to german defeat. It enabled allied terrorist bombings while making blitzkrieg impossible. Concealed Jew Erhard Milch and his team in the Air Ministry were responsible for that kind of diversion (at least that's what Willi Messerchmit and Erst Remer say in their memories). So I'd throw Milch to a concentration camp and hire new people in Air Ministry, and generally speaking: rather concentrate on building fighters and then other forms of equipment like armors.
6.Put more attention to german nuclear program...
7.Listen to Rosenberg advices and come to Russia as a liberator, not as a conqueror.
I believe Hitler's strategy overally was brilliant, with these modifications derived from common sense, the outcome of the war would be different. Germany would have not win, but kept control over conquered Europe for sure.
1.Send big expeditionary force to Africa in summer of 1940 and try conquer Malta, Egypt and Middle East, solving german oil problem.
2.In a contrary to east european jewry, don't touch zionist settlers in Palestine, but have them under administrative control.
3.This would enable to strike deal with the American Jewry: keep USA out of the war, for zionist project in Palestine going on.
4.German economy wasn't fully engaged in war production, and in 1939-41 still continued producing luxury and consumer goods. It was not rearranged to total armament production until january 1942, when Germany found herself in war with three most powerful nations on earth. I'd make Speer armaments dictator in January 1940.
5.The downfall of german aircraft production since 1940, contributed much to german defeat. It enabled allied terrorist bombings while making blitzkrieg impossible. Concealed Jew Erhard Milch and his team in the Air Ministry were responsible for that kind of diversion (at least that's what Willi Messerchmit and Erst Remer say in their memories). So I'd throw Milch to a concentration camp and hire new people in Air Ministry, and generally speaking: rather concentrate on building fighters and then other forms of equipment like armors.
6.Put more attention to german nuclear program...
7.Listen to Rosenberg advices and come to Russia as a liberator, not as a conqueror.
I believe Hitler's strategy overally was brilliant, with these modifications derived from common sense, the outcome of the war would be different. Germany would have not win, but kept control over conquered Europe for sure.
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
The other suggestions become meaningless if, in invading Russia, Germany is automatically going to lose the war anyway.Listen to Rosenberg advices and come to Russia as a liberator, not as a conqueror.
- princeliberty10311517
- Member
- Posts: 621
- Joined: 05 Jun 2009, 22:26
- Location: Alexandria Virginia - DC area
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
But the best thing that could happen to Germany if they wait get the Baltics and Balkans under their domination.
Prehaps then Poland is forced to choose Germany over Russia and then Soviet Union out of fear attacks first.
The war beginning with a Russian attack on Poland and Germany is best way for Germany to end up winning.
Prehaps then Poland is forced to choose Germany over Russia and then Soviet Union out of fear attacks first.
The war beginning with a Russian attack on Poland and Germany is best way for Germany to end up winning.
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
if 1/2 to 1/3 of the captured russian troops could be recruited in to support troopsglenn239 wrote:The other suggestions become meaningless if, in invading Russia, Germany is automatically going to lose the war anyway.Listen to Rosenberg advices and come to Russia as a liberator, not as a conqueror.
instead of being shot or starved in crude camps
thus freeing up massive numbers of germans from support rolls to combat rolls
I think the chances get far better for a german victory or at least a armistice
with borders near the WW1 lines following the 1917 armistice
timing is the crucial factor both to get the russian troops to support the german efforts
and to get a peace deal before the USA joined the war as after that there is little hope
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
But then it's only to Germany's advantage if she is matched against Britain alone. Throw France in much less the US and it's all down hill.princeliberty10311517 wrote:Not that Germany built faster in 1940 and 1941 but that would have.
Britain went on a full scale war economy while Hitler failed to do so. But if you look at what England was planning on building vs. what Germany was planning on building.....
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
Not really he started a war with two western powers he wasn't ancious to fight and one of whom he couldn't defeat when his real strategic goals were in the East.cortodanzigese wrote:Hitler's strategy up to 1941 was correct: ....
- von_noobie
- Member
- Posts: 88
- Joined: 16 Jul 2006, 02:17
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
Talk Japan into stading down and stop attackign Russia.. and thus opening fuel back into there...
Not take Polnd.. and saty peaceful.. Atleast until they are actually prepared for war.. Airforce army and navy
Attempt to standanise equiptment between Germany and Italy (and other allies in europe)
Aid Persia in Building up infastructure and armed forces
Secretly support civilians in Iraq/Syria and help them get independance.. and ally with them
Continue research into technology (eg: Jet fighters) If the could gain and improve Jet fighters for practical use.. they could gain Complete air supremecy on any front in short order.
Take poland.. Should France and Britian nd others choose to declare war.. Attack them as was originally done.. Thoe this time attack on UK would be with Proper navy and a powerful airforce unmatched by anyone.
With France and UK out take NA and Secure Middle East.
Launch combined attack on Russia involving Japan aswell (Japan being granted fuel supplies from Middle East) and force Stalin to Surrender, Attack should have set targets.. not changing targets.
After that not to sure.. Possibly launch attacks onto West and south african areas.. thoe by this time America will undoubtly start to intervien.. So.. maybe sit back and cool it for a while.. Build up real defences..
Or ignoring all that could just bring in Chuck Norris =)
Not take Polnd.. and saty peaceful.. Atleast until they are actually prepared for war.. Airforce army and navy
Attempt to standanise equiptment between Germany and Italy (and other allies in europe)
Aid Persia in Building up infastructure and armed forces
Secretly support civilians in Iraq/Syria and help them get independance.. and ally with them
Continue research into technology (eg: Jet fighters) If the could gain and improve Jet fighters for practical use.. they could gain Complete air supremecy on any front in short order.
Take poland.. Should France and Britian nd others choose to declare war.. Attack them as was originally done.. Thoe this time attack on UK would be with Proper navy and a powerful airforce unmatched by anyone.
With France and UK out take NA and Secure Middle East.
Launch combined attack on Russia involving Japan aswell (Japan being granted fuel supplies from Middle East) and force Stalin to Surrender, Attack should have set targets.. not changing targets.
After that not to sure.. Possibly launch attacks onto West and south african areas.. thoe by this time America will undoubtly start to intervien.. So.. maybe sit back and cool it for a while.. Build up real defences..
Or ignoring all that could just bring in Chuck Norris =)
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
He could have waited with his mass executions and concentration camps until after he won the war thus freeing more troops that could be used on the front.
- cortodanzigese
- Banned
- Posts: 235
- Joined: 03 Jul 2009, 15:29
- Location: Danzig
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
Or ( this was discussed in some earlier topic ), start the war after navy build program was finished.
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
Germany goes bankrupt before that happens and his opponents will actually be relativly stronger at the time.cortodanzigese wrote:Or ( this was discussed in some earlier topic ), start the war after navy build program was finished.
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
From my first day with power i start send money to nazi USA parties, this way i gain public opinion with USA and even have a puppet to run for president.
Force the Nationalist Spain to join me and solve Gibraltar problem in war with UK.
Annex all the countries like Hitler (without war) did.
Sent Africa Corps from the start of war, unprepared allies withdraw, Mediterranean is mine.
Do not let Italy invade Greece.
Press Greece and Turkey to Join me, if not i attack Turkey through Middle East.
Try to accelerate A-bomb research & production.
Produce jet fighters from the first day i have the technology.
Attack Poland and share it with Soviet Union.
Attack France.
Immediately attack UK with bombers (both explosive and phosphorus bombs).
Help IRA, and Scottish partisans (if there are any).
Invade with paratroopers before they are able to train militia and garrison forces.
Give Scottish their freedom to help me keep Britain under control.
If occupation of Britain trigger war with USA then I offer alliance with Soviets against them, if not means the time is right to try a coup with my nazi parties there. And i try an assassination on Stalin making sure it will fail. This will disorganize the state more. Try to coz problems to Soviets from Mongolia and Tuva. Share technology with Japan and then DOW on Soviets from at least 3 fronts (Poland, Japan, Turkey (using Italian & Turkish army)).
Never demand the suicide of Rommel.
Fire the Goring.
Give all the subs i can provide.
Do not produce the troublemaker Tiger and stick to a mass production of Panther.
Replace the very good Kar with some repeat rifle as soon as possible or even an assault rifle.
Try to obtain penicillin for my army, veterans are always better than recruits.
Open my eyes and see the truth for Enigma code.
Try to research computers.
No use of V1 and V2 until become ICBMs and reach Canada.
Help Argentina to gain control over Brazil and South America.
Give Spain Garrison role over France and Atlantic wall (if it is need).
In this way i have a rush on allies and disorganize the Soviets.
Benefits: Faster war, less resources spent, use more my allies, USA may join cause, Japan has hope.
Disadvantages: more money used in politics means less army production, no guarantee for success, based more in todays way of war (see USA) and less on their time way of war.
This would be my plan, but a good leader should redefine his plan in front of new conditions.
Force the Nationalist Spain to join me and solve Gibraltar problem in war with UK.
Annex all the countries like Hitler (without war) did.
Sent Africa Corps from the start of war, unprepared allies withdraw, Mediterranean is mine.
Do not let Italy invade Greece.
Press Greece and Turkey to Join me, if not i attack Turkey through Middle East.
Try to accelerate A-bomb research & production.
Produce jet fighters from the first day i have the technology.
Attack Poland and share it with Soviet Union.
Attack France.
Immediately attack UK with bombers (both explosive and phosphorus bombs).
Help IRA, and Scottish partisans (if there are any).
Invade with paratroopers before they are able to train militia and garrison forces.
Give Scottish their freedom to help me keep Britain under control.
If occupation of Britain trigger war with USA then I offer alliance with Soviets against them, if not means the time is right to try a coup with my nazi parties there. And i try an assassination on Stalin making sure it will fail. This will disorganize the state more. Try to coz problems to Soviets from Mongolia and Tuva. Share technology with Japan and then DOW on Soviets from at least 3 fronts (Poland, Japan, Turkey (using Italian & Turkish army)).
Never demand the suicide of Rommel.
Fire the Goring.
Give all the subs i can provide.
Do not produce the troublemaker Tiger and stick to a mass production of Panther.
Replace the very good Kar with some repeat rifle as soon as possible or even an assault rifle.
Try to obtain penicillin for my army, veterans are always better than recruits.
Open my eyes and see the truth for Enigma code.
Try to research computers.
No use of V1 and V2 until become ICBMs and reach Canada.
Help Argentina to gain control over Brazil and South America.
Give Spain Garrison role over France and Atlantic wall (if it is need).
In this way i have a rush on allies and disorganize the Soviets.
Benefits: Faster war, less resources spent, use more my allies, USA may join cause, Japan has hope.
Disadvantages: more money used in politics means less army production, no guarantee for success, based more in todays way of war (see USA) and less on their time way of war.
This would be my plan, but a good leader should redefine his plan in front of new conditions.
Order is just a manifestation of one possibility of Chaos
-
- Member
- Posts: 642
- Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 08:59
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
Most people have seem to forgotten the most obvious first choice.
stop being an anti-semitist.
stop being an anti-semitist.
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
Number crunching:
Well, I will play from the point of view of Hitler's preferences: To won the war it will mean to satisfy his ambitions,
What would be "won the war" for Hitler? Well, like Stalin, Hitler wished to conquer the world. But that would be unfeasible, what would be a good position for Germany? Dominate all mainland continental Europe plus the european Soviet Union.
Technically, in 1942 Hitler almost won the war, in the sense that 80% of what he wanted to conquer was under German hands after 3 years of war. He only needed to defeat the Soviet Union (to make them give up and retreat to Siberia).
I will start to change history in November 1942. Cancel operation Blue: Paulus retreats from Stalingrad, and saves the lives of 220,000 soldiers, this is roughly equivalent to about 12-14 divisions, so I will assume that Germany increases the total number of divisions available in mid 1943 from 280 to ~293 (the recruits that made the reconstituted six army will be used to make new units). Also, evacuate afrika corps: The desert war was useless. Note: In June 1943 Germany had 180 divisions in the East and 100 division elsewhere.
Forget about the oil in Baku, it is not worth it, invest in the increase of production of synthetic oil (to produce 1 ton of synthetic oil costs about 6 time more than 1 ton of oil, however what would be the cost of conquering that remote area of soviet union? A loot!).
Now the real strategic decision: Statistics show that the Soviet union could replenish their ranks in 1943-1944 if they suffered less than 650 thousand causalities per month (in Glantz book the periods where the soviets suffered more than 2.1 million causalities in a 3 month period where periods of reduction in total manpower strength of the Red Army). In early 1943, retreat like in reality. But, start operation citadel in April instead of July, in this case the soviets will be less prepared and the possibility of success will be greater.
Why? In 1943 the soviet union suffered 2.1 million causalities in the first trimester (manpower decreased by 0.1 million), 0.7 million in the second (in response total red army manpower increased by over 1.2 million). However, in the third semester of 1943 the soviet union suffered 2.7 million causalities and total red army strength decreased by 0.65 million between July and October. The strategy here is simple: Win the war by attrition. How Germany would be able to strike that early and maintain the strategic initiative thought the year? Simple: Instead of allocating 62% of their ground forces in the Soviet union, allocate more (I think that 85-90% is a good proportion). Supplement the 180 divisions of June 1943 with 80 divisions, for a total of 260 divisions, around 35 divisions will be enough to defend Italy and maintain a screen army in the European mainland. Allocate air power and guns to defend the Reich in the historical way: It was needed, since without protection the industrial production would have fallen more than it did.
It is a gamble: Put 90% of the Wehrmacht against the soviets for a year and hope that the western allies don't try to invade the mainland in 1943, break the soviet union that year and in 1944 break the western allies.
Don't waste money on useless stuff like the V program. Also, since may 1943 it was a waste of money to make submarines and their production sucked 750 million reichmarks that year. In 1943, 12% of the total armament production of Germany was made by submarines. A rational allocation would have decreased that to 5%, since may 1943 they became useless, instead make more planes, munitions and tanks. These weapons corresponded to 70% of total war production in 1943, a increase to 77% would mean 10% more planes, tanks and munitions. While the V program represented 5 billion reichmarks fluxed down the toilet, cancel that and increase conventional production in 1943-1944 (5 billion reichmarks represented the cost of making and operating 25.000 planes!). So I predict a total production in 1943 of over 20.000 tanks and assault guns, and over 30.000 planes, over 3 million tons of munition (instead of the historical 17.800 tanks and 27.500 planes and 2.8 million tons of munitions), allocate 90% or more of these weapons to the eastern front instead of the historical 50-60% in 1943.
So German forces in the eastern front in 1943 would be around 45% larger and have about 60-70% more armament. Also, put the generals to operationalize the plan to take down the soviet union, they know better than Hitler and me what to do with the 260 divisions. I expect that instead of the 7.5 million causalities suffered that year, the soviets would suffer more than 10 million (maybe 12-13 million). Also, note that the soviet union was attacking with everything they got: In 1943 they lost 23.500 tanks and made 24.100, they lost 27 thousand planes and made 30 thousand. A force 50% more powerful would imply in a significantly higher rate of attrition. So by December 1943 I would guess that after 10-13 million causalities the soviet union would have around 3-4 million men, against 5.5 million axis soldiers, outnumbered in tanks and airplanes (in fact the soviets had about 6.2 million men against 3.6 million axis). The tide would be more than inverted in my amateur "what if", and 1.5-1.7 axis to soviet soldier would mean a tremendous advantage against then, since in every battle where Germans had an advantage in number against the soviets, the soviets where annihilated easily. A predict a soviet collapse by late 1943, early 1944 (depends on the generals, if), however, the US would react and land on France before June (like march or april, their plan was to make an emergency action if the soviet union collapsed), anyway, the 20-25 gallant divisions in the western front in early 1944 would have to retreat in this event and await for the full mass of the wehrmacht to take care of then.
However, by mid 1944 Germany would (because of the absence of the massive causalities of the eastern front) have amassed a army of 350 divisions (in WW1 they had an army that size, with a smaller base population). Put around 40-50 divisions in the frontier with the Soviet Union (reduced to a siberian country of 40-50 million people, 1 division per 1 million people takes care if the remains of the red army tries to attack). By mid 1944 the german army would be able to redeploy their forces to retake normandy (and the areas of france that the western allies would have taken by that time). So we would have 300 divisions vs 100-150 divisions that the western allies could land in the 2-3 months time. For comparison, in mid 1944 Germany had only 70 divisions in the western front.
Also. Invest money in the development of the Me 262 jet fighter: Maybe by late 1943 it would enter mass production, reducing the damage to the German economy caused by bombing in 1944. With means even more tanks and planes. With more and better planes and 100% allocated vs the western allies, Germany would prevent then front achieving aerial superiority and bombing the economy to oblivion. Let's see, Speer estimated that bombing reduced armament production in 1944 by 32% in airplanes and 35% in tanks. Lets assume that in this case armament production is reduced by 15%, due to jet fighters destroying the bombers. Then we would have, instead of the historical 22.000 tanks and 37.000 airplanes in 1944, about 28.000 tanks and 47.000 airplanes, all of then against the poor US and Britain.
So, with 4 times more men on land and more planes in the air, plus more armament production and more resources, less enemies and better technology, etc, Nazi europe would continue to be Nazi and Hitler would execute 30-40 million civilians to cleanse the lands of eastern europe of the inferior races.
Well, I will play from the point of view of Hitler's preferences: To won the war it will mean to satisfy his ambitions,
What would be "won the war" for Hitler? Well, like Stalin, Hitler wished to conquer the world. But that would be unfeasible, what would be a good position for Germany? Dominate all mainland continental Europe plus the european Soviet Union.
Technically, in 1942 Hitler almost won the war, in the sense that 80% of what he wanted to conquer was under German hands after 3 years of war. He only needed to defeat the Soviet Union (to make them give up and retreat to Siberia).
I will start to change history in November 1942. Cancel operation Blue: Paulus retreats from Stalingrad, and saves the lives of 220,000 soldiers, this is roughly equivalent to about 12-14 divisions, so I will assume that Germany increases the total number of divisions available in mid 1943 from 280 to ~293 (the recruits that made the reconstituted six army will be used to make new units). Also, evacuate afrika corps: The desert war was useless. Note: In June 1943 Germany had 180 divisions in the East and 100 division elsewhere.
Forget about the oil in Baku, it is not worth it, invest in the increase of production of synthetic oil (to produce 1 ton of synthetic oil costs about 6 time more than 1 ton of oil, however what would be the cost of conquering that remote area of soviet union? A loot!).
Now the real strategic decision: Statistics show that the Soviet union could replenish their ranks in 1943-1944 if they suffered less than 650 thousand causalities per month (in Glantz book the periods where the soviets suffered more than 2.1 million causalities in a 3 month period where periods of reduction in total manpower strength of the Red Army). In early 1943, retreat like in reality. But, start operation citadel in April instead of July, in this case the soviets will be less prepared and the possibility of success will be greater.
Why? In 1943 the soviet union suffered 2.1 million causalities in the first trimester (manpower decreased by 0.1 million), 0.7 million in the second (in response total red army manpower increased by over 1.2 million). However, in the third semester of 1943 the soviet union suffered 2.7 million causalities and total red army strength decreased by 0.65 million between July and October. The strategy here is simple: Win the war by attrition. How Germany would be able to strike that early and maintain the strategic initiative thought the year? Simple: Instead of allocating 62% of their ground forces in the Soviet union, allocate more (I think that 85-90% is a good proportion). Supplement the 180 divisions of June 1943 with 80 divisions, for a total of 260 divisions, around 35 divisions will be enough to defend Italy and maintain a screen army in the European mainland. Allocate air power and guns to defend the Reich in the historical way: It was needed, since without protection the industrial production would have fallen more than it did.
It is a gamble: Put 90% of the Wehrmacht against the soviets for a year and hope that the western allies don't try to invade the mainland in 1943, break the soviet union that year and in 1944 break the western allies.
Don't waste money on useless stuff like the V program. Also, since may 1943 it was a waste of money to make submarines and their production sucked 750 million reichmarks that year. In 1943, 12% of the total armament production of Germany was made by submarines. A rational allocation would have decreased that to 5%, since may 1943 they became useless, instead make more planes, munitions and tanks. These weapons corresponded to 70% of total war production in 1943, a increase to 77% would mean 10% more planes, tanks and munitions. While the V program represented 5 billion reichmarks fluxed down the toilet, cancel that and increase conventional production in 1943-1944 (5 billion reichmarks represented the cost of making and operating 25.000 planes!). So I predict a total production in 1943 of over 20.000 tanks and assault guns, and over 30.000 planes, over 3 million tons of munition (instead of the historical 17.800 tanks and 27.500 planes and 2.8 million tons of munitions), allocate 90% or more of these weapons to the eastern front instead of the historical 50-60% in 1943.
So German forces in the eastern front in 1943 would be around 45% larger and have about 60-70% more armament. Also, put the generals to operationalize the plan to take down the soviet union, they know better than Hitler and me what to do with the 260 divisions. I expect that instead of the 7.5 million causalities suffered that year, the soviets would suffer more than 10 million (maybe 12-13 million). Also, note that the soviet union was attacking with everything they got: In 1943 they lost 23.500 tanks and made 24.100, they lost 27 thousand planes and made 30 thousand. A force 50% more powerful would imply in a significantly higher rate of attrition. So by December 1943 I would guess that after 10-13 million causalities the soviet union would have around 3-4 million men, against 5.5 million axis soldiers, outnumbered in tanks and airplanes (in fact the soviets had about 6.2 million men against 3.6 million axis). The tide would be more than inverted in my amateur "what if", and 1.5-1.7 axis to soviet soldier would mean a tremendous advantage against then, since in every battle where Germans had an advantage in number against the soviets, the soviets where annihilated easily. A predict a soviet collapse by late 1943, early 1944 (depends on the generals, if), however, the US would react and land on France before June (like march or april, their plan was to make an emergency action if the soviet union collapsed), anyway, the 20-25 gallant divisions in the western front in early 1944 would have to retreat in this event and await for the full mass of the wehrmacht to take care of then.
However, by mid 1944 Germany would (because of the absence of the massive causalities of the eastern front) have amassed a army of 350 divisions (in WW1 they had an army that size, with a smaller base population). Put around 40-50 divisions in the frontier with the Soviet Union (reduced to a siberian country of 40-50 million people, 1 division per 1 million people takes care if the remains of the red army tries to attack). By mid 1944 the german army would be able to redeploy their forces to retake normandy (and the areas of france that the western allies would have taken by that time). So we would have 300 divisions vs 100-150 divisions that the western allies could land in the 2-3 months time. For comparison, in mid 1944 Germany had only 70 divisions in the western front.
Also. Invest money in the development of the Me 262 jet fighter: Maybe by late 1943 it would enter mass production, reducing the damage to the German economy caused by bombing in 1944. With means even more tanks and planes. With more and better planes and 100% allocated vs the western allies, Germany would prevent then front achieving aerial superiority and bombing the economy to oblivion. Let's see, Speer estimated that bombing reduced armament production in 1944 by 32% in airplanes and 35% in tanks. Lets assume that in this case armament production is reduced by 15%, due to jet fighters destroying the bombers. Then we would have, instead of the historical 22.000 tanks and 37.000 airplanes in 1944, about 28.000 tanks and 47.000 airplanes, all of then against the poor US and Britain.
So, with 4 times more men on land and more planes in the air, plus more armament production and more resources, less enemies and better technology, etc, Nazi europe would continue to be Nazi and Hitler would execute 30-40 million civilians to cleanse the lands of eastern europe of the inferior races.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
Thank you for this insight into the way your mind works cortodanzigese. It confirms impressions gained on the 'holocaust' forum.cortodanzigese wrote:Hitler's strategy up to 1941 was correct: he started the war in proper moment and knocked out almost all adversaries. I'd change only a few his decisions.
1.Send big expeditionary force to Africa in summer of 1940 and try conquer Malta, Egypt and Middle East, solving german oil problem.
2.In a contrary to east european jewry, don't touch zionist settlers in Palestine, but have them under administrative control.
3.This would enable to strike deal with the American Jewry: keep USA out of the war, for zionist project in Palestine going on.
4.German economy wasn't fully engaged in war production, and in 1939-41 still continued producing luxury and consumer goods. It was not rearranged to total armament production until january 1942, when Germany found herself in war with three most powerful nations on earth. I'd make Speer armaments dictator in January 1940.
5.The downfall of german aircraft production since 1940, contributed much to german defeat. It enabled allied terrorist bombings while making blitzkrieg impossible. Concealed Jew Erhard Milch and his team in the Air Ministry were responsible for that kind of diversion (at least that's what Willi Messerchmit and Erst Remer say in their memories). So I'd throw Milch to a concentration camp and hire new people in Air Ministry, and generally speaking: rather concentrate on building fighters and then other forms of equipment like armors.
6.Put more attention to german nuclear program...
7.Listen to Rosenberg advices and come to Russia as a liberator, not as a conqueror.
I believe Hitler's strategy overally was brilliant, with these modifications derived from common sense, the outcome of the war would be different. Germany would have not win, but kept control over conquered Europe for sure.
I am particularly impressed by the depth of ignorance required to even consider point 3 worth typing. The idea that America would abandon Britain for the sake of a few hundred thousand jews in Palestine is so bizarre that I'm tempted to believe it is a joke. Only someone simultaneously obsessed with delusions about jews & utterly ignorant of US history or politics could even begin to imagine such things.
You need to spend less time on the net & more time reading actual books by recognised historians. Oh, and stop being an anti-semite. That would help too.
-
- Member
- Posts: 642
- Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 08:59
Re: Assume you are Hitler. How would you have won the war ?
My master plan:
stop being anti semitist
Start friendly diplomatic relationships with the USA and the USSR.
Ill start the rest history at 1940:
After Battle of France is Won immediately prepare for operation Sealion, put all resources into building necessary equipment for invasion. Order higher production of bombers capable high altitude bombing, start high altitude bombing campaign against British industrial targets and airfields. Step down production of U-boats and allocate resources into invasion prep.
Invasion: One large blitzkrieg strike. Order almost all fighters to attack Southern airfields and prevent fighters from taking off and get capital ships to sweep the channel along with U-boats. Crush Britain with overhwelming force in a few months.
Keep USA out of the war against Germany and try to create alliance with USSR, Japan, Italy etc. After Sealion dedicate most resources into building the Graf Zeppelin and the rest spent on researching new ground and air weapons. The bf-109 deficiencies could be stop gapped with decreasing 109 production and increasing production for the Fw-190. Stop producing the Bf-110 and research a newer fighter to match the mosquito. Draw more troops away from mainland europe and bolster the Afrika Korps , I would send a few fighter Aces there to help the Regia Aeronautica and supply old planes to the Italians. Also with the Capture of Britain the Kriegsmarine could be free to wreck havoc in the Mediterranean and the US East coast. Defeat the British and Capture Alexandria along with the Italians and maybe the USSR could be persuaded to aid as well through the middle East. Since there was no operation Barbarossa the majority of Germany's forces could be concentrated in North Africa. As soon as the Mediterranean is a German lake stop producing the bf109 and as soon as the ME 262 is ready put in into production immediately at the same time finding better engines for it.
Continue making Capital ships and once the Me-262 is perfected along with the rest of the Luftwaffe, Germany should now be ready to attack the Americas. And instead of sending people to concentration camps treat them with leniency and then recruit them into the military, with enormous amounts of Raw materials and support from Germany's allies soon the rest of the world could be theirs.
stop being anti semitist
Start friendly diplomatic relationships with the USA and the USSR.
Ill start the rest history at 1940:
After Battle of France is Won immediately prepare for operation Sealion, put all resources into building necessary equipment for invasion. Order higher production of bombers capable high altitude bombing, start high altitude bombing campaign against British industrial targets and airfields. Step down production of U-boats and allocate resources into invasion prep.
Invasion: One large blitzkrieg strike. Order almost all fighters to attack Southern airfields and prevent fighters from taking off and get capital ships to sweep the channel along with U-boats. Crush Britain with overhwelming force in a few months.
Keep USA out of the war against Germany and try to create alliance with USSR, Japan, Italy etc. After Sealion dedicate most resources into building the Graf Zeppelin and the rest spent on researching new ground and air weapons. The bf-109 deficiencies could be stop gapped with decreasing 109 production and increasing production for the Fw-190. Stop producing the Bf-110 and research a newer fighter to match the mosquito. Draw more troops away from mainland europe and bolster the Afrika Korps , I would send a few fighter Aces there to help the Regia Aeronautica and supply old planes to the Italians. Also with the Capture of Britain the Kriegsmarine could be free to wreck havoc in the Mediterranean and the US East coast. Defeat the British and Capture Alexandria along with the Italians and maybe the USSR could be persuaded to aid as well through the middle East. Since there was no operation Barbarossa the majority of Germany's forces could be concentrated in North Africa. As soon as the Mediterranean is a German lake stop producing the bf109 and as soon as the ME 262 is ready put in into production immediately at the same time finding better engines for it.
Continue making Capital ships and once the Me-262 is perfected along with the rest of the Luftwaffe, Germany should now be ready to attack the Americas. And instead of sending people to concentration camps treat them with leniency and then recruit them into the military, with enormous amounts of Raw materials and support from Germany's allies soon the rest of the world could be theirs.