Question for WW II history buffs

[Bullman]

Originally posted by BLACKHAWKNJ:
1. July 1943-Hitler cancels Operation Zitsdelle, the attack on Kursk. Von Manstein appointed Commander in Chief, East.
2. Luftwaffe Chief of Staff Wever survives.
The Luftwaffe develops and adopts a 4 engine bomber. The FW 200 Kondor was basically a reconaissance plane, not a bomber.

Missed your reference to Wever just before I started doing the research for this post. Walther Wever, he died in 1936 in a plane crash and it appears that any hope of 4 engined strategic bombers died with him. Hitler was more into a numbers game, and you could build the 2 engine bombers faster, and have more numbers quicker, and the 2 engine bombers didn't need the range to be the tactical airforce that the Luftwaffe turned into. It really worked quite well for a while when the "blitzkreig" was all that on the battlefield. But the 2 engined bombers didn't have the range or load capacity to make a good show at strategic bombing, which they needed badly to cripple the Soviets industrial bases in the Urals.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

IIRC it was Goering who told Kesselring-Wever's successor that:
"The Fuehrer will never ask me how big our bombers are, but how many there are!"
The Do 19 and Ju 89 were designated as "Uralbombers"-they should have enough range to bomb Soviet industry in the Urals. But the push for their development died with wever, the Luftwaffe was good for close air support, little
else. Stalingrad exposed the Lustwaffe's lack of strategic transport capability.

 

[haggis]

Operations "Freshman", "Grouse", and "Gunnerside" - where Norwegian commandos destroyed Norway's heavy water production facility - insured that Hitler would not get the heavy water he needed to develop an atomic bomb. With that resource, it is possible that Germany would have gotten the bomb before the US. I'm convinced that it he got it, he would have instantly used it on Britain and Russia.

Buck

 

[cmort666]

Originally posted by haggis:
Operations "Freshman", "Grouse", and "Gunnerside" - where Norwegian commandos destroyed Norway's heavy water production facility - insured that Hitler would not get the heavy water he needed to develop an atomic bomb. With that resource, it is possible that Germany would have gotten the bomb before the US. I'm convinced that it he got it, he would have instantly used it on Britain and Russia.

Buck

Many people believe that Germany's approach to the bomb project was fundamentally flawed. Even with the heavy water, we probably would have beaten them to the bomb.

 

[walkinghorse]

Even with the heavy water, we probably would have beaten them to the bomb.

Many people believe that Germany's approach to the bomb project was fundamentally flawed. Even with the heavy water, we probably would have beaten them to the bomb.

No arguement with you regarding the Nazi's nuclear capability being flawed......but would the Allies have used their atomic bomb in mainland Europe.....lots of thought and study say NO!

Dresden not withstanding! (very bad pun

)

Too many relatives, close and distant, in some cases parents, grandparents, children, etc. still there.
Remember the two main theaters of WWII were different in a lot of ways.

 

[JamesArthur60]

IMO it boils down to this, Hitler was a madman. It was his way or the highway...total control. I've talked to WWII ETO vets and many say the German Army was a tough foe with excellent equipment and worthy command officers. But, unlike the American Army who were permitted to make on the spot command decisions by NCO's, German Infantry soldiers were restricted and had to receive orders from high command officers and/or Hitler at times. Even historians have said, if Rommel had his way, the Normandy landing outcome would have been much different. But, thankfully for the allies, he was overruled by the supreme madman himself, Hitler.

 

[cmort666]

Originally posted by JamesArthur60:
IMO it boils down to this, Hitler was a madman. It was his way or the highway...total control. I've talked to WWII ETO vets and many say the German Army was a tough foe with excellent equipment and worthy command officers. But, unlike the American Army who were permitted to make on the spot command decisions by NCO's, German Infantry soldiers were restricted and had to receive orders from high command officers and/or Hitler at times. Even historians have said, if Rommel had his way, the Normandy landing outcome would have been much different. But, thankfully for the allies, he was overruled by the supreme madman himself, Hitler.

At the lower levels, there was considerable autonomy in the Wehrmacht. The bottleneck was in situations which required a decision by Hitler, or as was all too often, attracted Hitler's attention, like a shiny colorful object.

I'm reading the Collector Grade book "Sturmgewehr!", about the tortuous development of the assault rifle by the Germans in WWII. Hitler was a stumbling block every step of the way because of his WWI based prejudices.

Hitler wasn't alone in making arbitrary decisions based on personal prejudice (of all types, not just racial, religious and ethnic), but unlike Stalin, he never learned from his mistakes. Stalin personally retarded development of modern monoplane fighters in the Soviet Union, based on his faulty assessment of air combat in the Spanish Civil War. But once the Luftwaffe swatted the Red Army Air Force out of the air in 1941, herculean efforts were expended to ensure that modern aircraft were produced in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the Germans. Hitler and his fawning sycophants continued to meddle disasterously with German aircraft R&D and production to the very end.

 

[cmort666]

Originally posted by walkinghorse:

Even with the heavy water, we probably would have beaten them to the bomb.

Many people believe that Germany's approach to the bomb project was fundamentally flawed. Even with the heavy water, we probably would have beaten them to the bomb.

No arguement with you regarding the Nazi's nuclear capability being flawed......but would the Allies have used their atomic bomb in mainland Europe.....lots of thought and study say NO!

Dresden not withstanding! (very bad pun

)

Too many relatives, close and distant, in some cases parents, grandparents, children, etc. still there.
Remember the two main theaters of WWII were different in a lot of ways.

We bombed FRANCE during the war, and killed a lot of Frenchmen doing it.

Had the Germans either looked like they were going to get the bomb in a timely fashion, or that they were going to mount a coherent, tenacious defense in depth, like the Japanese, Germany would have gotten a family sized dose of "Jewish Science".

The bomb would have been dropped on Germany for the same reason it was dropped on Japan. Any President who even LOOKED like he was willing to take up to a million US casualties to protect the ENEMY, would have been voted out, impeached or assassinated.

 

[WR Moore]

There's a book by Panzer General von Mellenthin that makes many of the points raised here earlier: the war started earlier than expected (planned 1943?), Mussolini needing rescued in the Slavic republics delayed Barbarossa (Russian invasion and title of the generals book) by 6 months or so, ensuring the winter debacle, the failure to capitalize on the Ukrainian hatred for Stalin (Whermacht greeted as liberators), Hitlers meddeling in decisions (tho' he was right a decent number of times), the generals overvaluing their personal oath to Hitler, the list goes on.

I think you could credibly argue that Hitlers giving in to Goerings claim that the Luftwaffe could finish off the BEF at Dunkirk was the turning point. Changing the target set from the RAF to whatever it became would be a close second.

 

[cmort666]

Originally posted by WR Moore:
There's a book by Panzer General von Mellenthin that makes many of the points raised here earlier: the war started earlier than expected (planned 1943?), Mussolini needing rescued in the Slavic republics delayed Barbarossa (Russian invasion and title of the generals book) by 6 months or so, ensuring the winter debacle, the failure to capitalize on the Ukrainian hatred for Stalin (Whermacht greeted as liberators), Hitlers meddeling in decisions (tho' he was right a decent number of times), the generals overvaluing their personal oath to Hitler, the list goes on.

I think you could credibly argue that Hitlers giving in to Goerings claim that the Luftwaffe could finish off the BEF at Dunkirk was the turning point. Changing the target set from the RAF to whatever it became would be a close second.

1. All of Hitler's "successes" were POLITICAL successes, NOT military ones. In the beginning, Hitler was a genius at culling the weaklings from the herd. Whenever he meddled in actual military strategy, it was almost always a disaster.

2. Not only did Hitler throw away the chance for an allied Ukrainian army, he throw away the very real chance for an allied RUSSIAN Army. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet POWs KNEW they'd been sold up the river. They had already been labeled as "criminals" and "traitors". They had NOTHING to lose by switching sides. Instead, Hitler starved them to death.

But then, why should anyone be surprised by questionable judgement on the part of a syphilitic meth addict?

 

[wbraswell]

I don't think Rommel could have made much differnce on D-Day. If they had brought the Panzers out they would just have been shot to pieces by Allied Fighter Bombers and naval barrage. Remember that we ruled the air completely. While it takes ground forces to hold objectives, you win the war, not by killing soldiers, but by killing everthing they are fighting for. They lose their fight when they understand that all their heritage, home, and family could disappear. Don't tell me they were "innocent" civilians. They were a support group for their army, their sons, fathers and brothers. Look at the failure of WW I, it was just armies fighting armies. Nearly killed of an entire generation of young men in Europe, and didn't solve spit. In WW II, we played it right. Dresden, Tokyo, Berlin, Hiroshima, and a lot of others became rubble fields. When they believe their whole culture will die, they give up. That's what we aren't doing now, so we aren't winning.

 

[red14]

Ferelmerril nailed it. After reading the rest of the thread, it is proven time and time again.

Purely military speaking, if Hitler left his generals alone, Germany prevails.

The whole thread is fascinating. Some of you guys really know your stuff.

 

[rundownfid]

In my opinion, much as Bullman stated, the war was winnable until the Battle of Britain was lost. Then Hitler can't invade, can't get at the Brits on their unsinkable aircraft carrier.
He needed to have killed Churchill before the war, then he might have won in France and negotiated the Brits out of the war.
The USSR was going to be a terrible test of arms, Hitler made it much harder by starting late and not having the logistical capacity to get to Moscow as quickly as his armies could drive the Russians back.

So, not getting Britain out of the war early.
Then attacking the USSR, especially in mid June, and with insufficient supplies and the means of transporting them East rapidly enough to sustain the fighting the Ruskies will require.
Finally, poorly managing the entry of the US. Had the Germans ad Japanese worked more cleverly they might well have kept the US out for over a year. The Japanese needed the Dutch oil and as a Naval power had to have lusted after a whack at the Royal navy, but the attack on Pearl Harbor was a fatal error as the Japs were in no position to fight the US. After they had the Dutch oil and rubber and had assimilated the increased industrial capacity perhaps they, and the Germans (having dispatched the Russians) could have made a go of the US, but that would have depended on a weakened Allied will as much as a strengthened Axis military.

Fascinating what ifs but fortunately only that.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

In his book "Lost Victories" Von Manstein mentions that when he was summoned from the Leningrad Front to try to retrieve the situation at Stalingrad he stopped at the HQ of Army Group Center, at that time commanded by Von Kluge. Von Kluge said he had to confer with Hitler for any operation involving a battalion or more.
There is some anecdotal evidence that Werner Heisenberg and other German scientists sabotaged the German Atom Bomb, dragged their feet, always discovering "difficulties", fighting with Party authorities. Many of Germany's best scientists had been driven out because they were Jewish, the one remained were often second rate at best.
In his book "Inside Hitler's Headquarters" General Walter Warlimont says German planning for war with the U.S. started on December 11, 1941 AFTER they learned that Hitler had declared war on us.
Hitler WASN'T a madman-he was a fathead, a know it all, a "Bessserwisser" to use the German word. "Greatest Warlord of All Time" to use Goebbels' phrase.

 

[wjh2657]

First generation American, I had kin on both sides in WWII. Most of my German kin feel two actions doomed Hitler to defeat, regardless of military prowess.

1. Invading Russia before wrapping up the Western Front. War with USSR was inevitable, but he was way too early.
2. Forming the Axis pact and including Japan, thus putting him on an early collision course with USA (which at the time did not want to fight for Europe!)

There were political undercurrents in Eastern Europe and USA that he could have capitalized on if he had not gotten involved with USSR and USA as early as he did.

We can be grateful he did screw up! I like speaking English!

 

[carguychris]

Originally posted by Amici:
Specifically, his biggest mistakes were:

1. NOT eliminating the RAF when it was on the brink of destruction; and

2. THEN invading Russia.

A distant third would be not eliminating Malta as a British base, which cost Rommel much of the supplies he needed in Africa.

+1, although I'd add this:

1a. Failure to realize the importance of the British coastal radar towers until it was too late.

At the beginning of the Battle of Britain, British radar facilities were sparsely distributed, highly visible, and poorly defended. If the Germans had realized their purpose and targeted them FIRST, they could have left the RAF flying blind.

Instead, the Luftwaffe's initial strategy to stop the RAF was to target easily-replaced and non-vital forward airfields. RAF pilots were flying exclusively over friendly territory, so they could land damaged fighters on roads or farmer's fields and be rushed back to the front; the German campaign to eliminate landing sites was a fool's errand. It bought enough time for the British to build up their radar network, making it redundant enough to be resistant to German assault once they realized its purpose (too) late in the campaign.

FWIW I've been wracking my brain trying to think of small changes that would have resulted in Japanese victory on the Pacific front, but they made so many mistakes that it's hard to single out any particular one. It was like the death of a thousand cuts, inflicted on themselves.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I find it hard to think of any small changes
that would have made a difference, the Axis were doomed mainly by faulty strategic thinking
and pre war planning, especially economic planning.
For example: Could Germany have defeated the UK? I say no, even if the RAF had somehow been defeated in the Battle of Britain, any German attempt to invade Britain would have ended in a
slaughter for the Germans. They did not have the sealift capacity, they tried to do in 3-4
months what they U.S., the U.K. and the Japanses had been studying and working on for over 20 years or more, namely amphibious landings. They basically saw Operation Sea Lion as a large scale river crossing, any Navy veterans or salt water sailors here will quickly enlighten us on the difference between crossing a river and venturing out on the ocean.
The Kriegsmarine would have been no match for the Royal Navy, the Germans lost half their destroyers in Norway. The Luftwaffe's deficiencies were starkly displayed in the Battle of Britain-they didn't even know what a drop tank was-an Me109 only had about a half hour of flying time over Britain. We have discussed the absence of any strategic bombing capacity in the Luftwaffe, Stalin admitted that the Strategic Bombing Campaign was a Second Front. Germany did not really mobilize economically until 1943-44, Italy never really did and lacked the resources, Japan also lacked the resources. While we can speculate on what would have happened if say McClellan had acted rapidly when received Lee's Lost Order and the Battle of Antietam was a smashing Northern victory, it hard to find any similar small "hinge of fate" for WWII.
In his memoirs Walter Schellenberg tells of the time he prepared a report on US economic capabilities. He gave it to Heydrich who was astounded to read of projected steel production of 80 to 90 million tons. (Germany produced about 22 million tons. Heydrich took the report
to a meeting with Hitler, Himmler and Goering.
Afterwards Goering shoved the report back at Schellenberg and said:
"Everything you have written is rubbish. You should have a psychiatrist examine your mental condition."
At Nuremburg Schellenber saw Goering, who said to him:
"Well it turns out you were not writing rubbish."

 

[cmort666]

Originally posted by carguychris:

Originally posted by Amici:
Specifically, his biggest mistakes were:

1. NOT eliminating the RAF when it was on the brink of destruction; and

2. THEN invading Russia.

A distant third would be not eliminating Malta as a British base, which cost Rommel much of the supplies he needed in Africa.

+1, although I'd add this:

1a. Failure to realize the importance of the British coastal radar towers until it was too late.

At the beginning of the Battle of Britain, British radar facilities were sparsely distributed, highly visible, and poorly defended. If the Germans had realized their purpose and targeted them FIRST, they could have left the RAF flying blind.

Instead, the Luftwaffe's initial strategy to stop the RAF was to target easily-replaced and non-vital forward airfields. RAF pilots were flying exclusively over friendly territory, so they could land damaged fighters on roads or farmer's fields and be rushed back to the front; the German campaign to eliminate landing sites was a fool's errand. It bought enough time for the British to build up their radar network, making it redundant enough to be resistant to German assault once they realized its purpose (too) late in the campaign.

The Germans sent the airship Graf Zeppelin out on one of the first ELINT (Electronic Intelligence) missions in history, listening for the radars... on the wrong frequencies.

 

[Bullman]

I think the Luftwaffe / Germans knew exactly what the radar towers were all about, as stated above they checked them out, if half heartedly. I think they just didn't care. The were fresh off of smashing victories where they were practically un opposed in Poland and France and I think they thought nothing could stand in their way, especially some silly radar towers that told the British they were coming. They most likely thought the British knew they were coming, and they thought they couldn't be stopped from coming. Goering thought that he could mop up the RAF in a couple of weeks tops. He was wrong.

And destroying the airfields could have worked, that was where the majority of the repair facility infrastructure was. But a Luftwaffe bomber crew accidently dumps a load of bombs on Coventry, Churchill throws a fit and sends some Wellingtons to bomb Berlin. Hitler is outraged and vows to level London, and all of a sudden they have forgotten about destroying the RAF. The RAF fighter production had already been spun up to full speed and it didn't take long for them to bounce back, they didn't have enough pilots to fly the planes that they had.