 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm not Boris. |
well you should be che
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Admiral
|
 |
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001 time: 00:31
|
|
From a strategic perspective, Hitler's drive, dedication, and long term vision were what allowed Germany to dominate mainland Europe until the fall of France. At that point, Hitler became a liability, continuously overruling his generals (who were ****ing brilliant, in general), and having no sort of strategic plan other than "everywhere we invade we will meet with unparalleled success."
Therefore, the biggest mistake the Axis made was not killing Hitler in 1940 and installing a military junta in charge of the country, somewhat similar to what was planned in '44. Italy might have objected, but Germany could have withheld support for North Africa and the Balkans, forcing Italy to go along.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Admiral
From a strategic perspective, Hitler's drive, dedication, and long term vision were what allowed Germany to dominate mainland Europe until the fall of France. At that point, Hitler became a liability, continuously overruling his generals (who were ****ing brilliant, in general), and having no sort of strategic plan other than "everywhere we invade we will meet with unparalleled success."
Therefore, the biggest mistake the Axis made was not killing Hitler in 1940 and installing a military junta in charge of the country, somewhat similar to what was planned in '44. Italy might have objected, but Germany could have withheld support for North Africa and the Balkans, forcing Italy to go along. |
POD - Canaris succeeds in having Hitler killed in summer of 1940, and say, a Prussian junta takes over. Assume the residual Nazis go quietly. What do the Prussians do now? Offer peace to UK, of course, but what will they offer that UK will accept? And assuming they do get a truce of sorts, how long will Stalin stay at peace? They still havent escaped Germanys strategic dilemma.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Admiral
|
 |
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001 time: 00:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark
POD - Canaris succeeds in having Hitler killed in summer of 1940, and say, a Prussian junta takes over. Assume the residual Nazis go quietly. What do the Prussians do now? Offer peace to UK, of course, but what will they offer that UK will accept? And assuming they do get a truce of sorts, how long will Stalin stay at peace? They still havent escaped Germanys strategic dilemma. |
The underlying fact is that in under no circumstances could Germany have taken over the world. It's just not going to happen.
However, even if Germany still attacks Russia, without Hitler, they take Moscow, probably take Leningrad, they have a much more coherent winter defensive strategy. Hence, they start 1942 on a much better footing, which they could have used to threaten Murmansk and Archangelsk, and severely hurt the allies abilities to support the Soviet war effort. This probably wouldn't have been enough to knock the USSR out of the war, but it would have put Germany in a much better position to counter any allied incursions into Europe (at least, ones in France. The Allied invasion of Italy was pointless).
If the Normandy, or Normandy equivalent in this timeline fails, that may have turned public opinion against the war in the US, which would guarantee German dominance of Europe. However, if the war continues, nuclear weapons would have been used on Germany without any real risk to the pacific theatre, and the allies would still win the war.
quote: Ladies love the Hitler. |

|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:31
|
|
Hmm let's see. Both Axis and Allied made lots of mistakes, naturally, but Axis....
Japan: I think they got too hungry too fast. Why? Maybe they had too much success in the air and against the Brits at first. And then they showed either madness or testicular fortiture by attacking the US, considering the situation they were in, ,and the downfall began. Basically I'd say they got too greedy too fast, instead of building more slowly.
Same for Hitler. He attacked Russia way too early on. He didn't want to attack first so soon, but he got reports the Russians were poorly equipped and tactics weren't strong either, but he disregarded this. After the Winter War, Hitler was convinced he will run Rooskies to the sea. Which he started doing at first, but then came winter, etc etc etc, ROoskies regrouped, made a comeback and the rest is history.
I also feel the Luftwaffe could have been in better hands than Goerings.
Preparations for the coming invasion was also not done properly, since Rommel checked the lines at beaches and told where the reinforcements are strongly needed, and where more men should be concentrated, and if this would not happen, the invading forces would be able to succeed. He was right. And they came, and on those spots Rommel pointed. So, they should have taken him a bit more seriously.
What else. Italy.. well, they weren't too much of an Axis player, since most didn't care what Mussolini wanted. They were too cool for fascism.
Anyway those would be the first ones that comes to my mind.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler
biggest mistakes:
1) Invading Russia too late in the year and with no winter uniforms.
2) Redrecting the bombing attacks away from the RAF when it was just about finished and to Britain's cities.
3) Terrorizing the Ukrainian and other Soviet peoples, turning people who had been cheering their "liberators" into blood-thirsty partisans.
4) Failing to crush the Brits at Dunkirk.
5) Trusting that the Ultra cypher couldn't be broken.
6) Using "Garbo" as the chief source of intelligence in Britain.
I don't see the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as a mistake. The Japanese needed to break the U.S. strategic-reasources embargo, and destroying the U.S. Navy was a way to go about that. However, the way they did it -- a sneak attack-- galvanized the U.S. people, and that was the mistake. |
Very good list!
BTW, we were taught in school that the failure at Dunkirk was the key. At that time (late sixties, early seventies) there was a large school of thought that if the BEF had been destroyed or largely captured England would have likely agreed to terms with Hitler.
I don't have an opinion on it, it is unknowable but plausible. I think that by attacking Russia prior to ending his war with the UK Hitler sealed his fate.
Someone needs to tell my why my thinking is wrong. 
How does Germany ever lose their gains if they do not attack Russia? England can't do it and Stalin would not have invaded. Invading Russia prior to bringing the war with England to a close was insanity. Bringing Japan into the Axis was a blunder, the declaration against the US wasn't, as the US would have declared on Germany anyway.
Nevertheless, Hitler had a puncher's chance to knockout Russia and came closer than people like to admit nowadays.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|