In WW2 the Germany had a chance to win?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Gwynn Compton
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Gwynn Compton » 01 Aug 2002 11:26

Hitler didn't seem to get too upset about the abandonment of Kharkov in early 1943 when it ultimately resulted in the successful recapture.
If I recall correctly, hadn't Hitler begun less involved in Command during this time, following the fall of Stalingrad? I'm not sure on this one though, but I do know that the 1943 offensive was the first time in a long time that the General's had been able to do some serious planning without Hitler messing around with it till near the end.



Panzer general
Posts: 32
Joined: 29 May 2002 22:28
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Panzer general » 01 Aug 2002 12:03

Gwynn Compton wrote:Most notably of these was Stalingrad. Paulus, having failed to disobey Hitler's orders, failing to take the gamble of breaking out early enough in the encirclement while there was still a chance, is a direct result of Hitler's own belief in his infallibility. Something which Paulus also believed in.
I think this is a good example of giving Hitler the blame of everything!

Some facts about Stalingrad. Paulus had no intention to leave the city at all! Why should u think?

Because in his opinion a retreat would result in heavy loses of his infantry and a collapse of the southern front! Guderian had a plan to make an escape of the sixth Army possible. This plan was drive with a division form the south-west to Stalingrad and that Paulus would drive towards this division. But Paulus refused.

Hitler agree with the concept of the plan but he wanted to hear form Paulus if this was possible for his Army to manage. Paulus told Hitler that this plan was no option because he had not enough fuel to do it. But in fact he had enough fuel to drive 35 Km. So Hitler, who had not the correct facts from Paulus Army, decided that the sixth Army must stay at all costs.


Panzer General

Posts: 231
Joined: 27 Mar 2002 04:25
Location: California USA

Post by b_c_ries » 02 Aug 2002 00:38

Hitler gave the order to hold Kharkov at all costs SS Obergruppenfuher "papa" Hauser directly disobeyed this order. Hitler got used to it because as events unfolded it became apparant that Hauser was correct. Hitlers orders were often disobeyed and if events proved the General right Hitler got over it. I still think that Hitlers order to up-gun the panzer-mk 111's to L-60 50mm gun after the fall of France was obeyed Moscow would have fallen in 1941.
If 70 grains of IMR 4064 in a 7.92x57 case behind a 197 gr. fmj is too much then 85 grains should be just right.

User avatar
Posts: 51
Joined: 23 Apr 2002 02:33
Location: Romania,Oradea

Post by panzzer » 04 Aug 2002 17:42

I dont know....but I know that Hitler was not ready for a long war...becouse he know that he had no chances! the blitzkrige teory was very efectiv the war agains Russia ..I am not so sure...I know very good the blitzkrige teory ... and the problem in Russia was that they had more that one objective! It's was almoust sure that the ofensive will colapse.

It's simple ...the Wemacht was very on limit! Just think ...they had 3 army grups and all had 3 objective if one of this will not make his objective the another must help!

It's very stupid ... the bitzkrige teory here was not useful.If the had strike with all forces in one
point ...In every point on the Russian teritory they had succeded!

In Stalingrad ,Moscow or any other city they would succed.

Even in large teritory's like Russia the biltzkrige teory it's good, in any situation! .. If they had a good assalt plan they had succeded!

User avatar
Posts: 51
Joined: 23 Apr 2002 02:33
Location: Romania,Oradea

Post by panzzer » 04 Aug 2002 17:44

aaaa sorry about my english :oops:

Posts: 34
Joined: 19 Jul 2002 20:15
Location: Sweden

Hitlers' abilities as strategist

Post by scatcat » 07 Aug 2002 03:26

Panzer general wrote:
Gwynn Compton wrote:We do have to remember that Hitler was nick named the "Bohemian Corporal" by Hindenburg. Perhaps the old man was right to remind those near him that Hitler had tactical, not strategic combat experience...
Hmmm I do not agree. Hitler wasn't so bad at all. He was the one who take some (risky) decisions that result in conquer almost Europe!!! The mean problem was the relationship between him and most of his generals. And some generals had made some weird decisions too. A good example of this is Operation Zitadelle (Kursk).

Most of his generals want to go through with this stupid operation. The Russians were already alarmed and had plenty of time to dig in! Hitler wasn't so sure about this operation neither Guderian. But the rest of the High Commander centre, even von Manstein would not listen to Guderian. (Hitler agree with Guderian but he had no other choice to give green light to the operation because he was under pressure after the debacle in Stalingrad)

My opinion about Germany winning the war is: if Hitler had started operation Barbarossa with his best General Guderian as Chief commander and not Halder, he would certainly had won the war.
On the same tune as being called the "Bohemian Corporal" he was also jokingly nicknamed Gröfaz (Grössest Feldzherr Alle Zeiten - Greatest Commander of All Times). The reason was simply that his own view of his strategic, operational and tactical skills far exceeded his abilities -- basically he listened a little bit too much to his own PR department... :P

After reading a few thousand pages on ww2 military history, it seems to me - astonishingly enough - that when he got it right it was almost by chance. :mrgreen:

Generals of course make mistakes too, but in operation Zitadelle, the biggest mistake was being undecisive:
  • ¤ Guderian believed that only in 1944 would the Germans be able to go on the offensive again, as the present situation showed that their divisions were much too weak and their equipment partly obsolescent.
    ¤ Guderian's opinion was shared by almost the entire senior army command who favored limited attacks with reequipped divisions during 1943.
    ¤ Von Manstein, who was seeking to deal the Soviet army more powerful blows, insisted that action was to be taken NOW -- further delay would just give the Russians more time to build up troops.
    ¤ Zeitzler shared von Manstein's beliefs, and these were presented to Hitler on a number of times after 19 march.
    ¤ Hitler worked out a plan with Zeitzler that involved an assault north of the Kursk salient and south of the salient. The plan was strictly restricted to the destruction of the forces inside the salient.
    ¤ Hitler, not always a good listener, disregarded what was the most essential factor - TIME - he favored a large build up of men and material rather than quick deployment.
    ¤ Hitler thereby postponed Operation Zitadelle, which Guderian bitterly contested.
    ¤ Zeitzler and von Manstein too became increasingly skeptical of the plan.
Hitler could have followed Guderians advise conserving strength and reequipping for the next year, OR he could have gone with Manstein and moved quickly -- he did neither, instead fortifying the troops past the decisive moment and then launching the attack anyway. By then the USSR knew all about it and it was far too late. 8O

BTW. Guderian was one of the great generals, as in one of the great...
Much more to the point is that OKH had a pretty good operative plan to take Russia, which Hitler threw out. The original plan was concentrated and decisive the final one dispersed.

Not to paint him a total fool, I have to give Hitler that he was a scary political strategist. One that managed to play the populistic card to the hilt, and one who could hide general deficiencies in a sense of greatness and great times. Somewhat of an illusionist and seducer.

My two cents.

Return to “What if”