Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Aaron Richards » Sat Jun 02, 2018 11:05 am

Nice little video I found on YouTube, that is otherwise a breeding ground for wehraboos, alternate history fanfics and other tinfoil conspiracy theories. Should put a damper on their activities for a bit, I think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbim2kGwhpc
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel "Holocaust Documents", where I fight back the sea of antisemitism & conspiracy theories that has taken over its comment section: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSX ... Un5jIhWm7g
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7990
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jun 02, 2018 6:48 pm

It is an interesting thought experiment, isn’t it? Could Germany have won WW II?

I’ve read arguments both for and against. I’ll give it some thought once I get an opportunity to watch the video in full. I just got a glance at it.
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13610
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:05 pm

You don't have to assume too much that is reasonable to make the outcome a closer call.

1. What if Hitler had not invaded Russia? HUGE FREAKING CHANGE. Carve up Poland keeping Stalin happy and let Stalin get into a fight later with Japan.

2. What if Goering had finished the Brits at Dunkirk? Not the impact of "starting a land war against Russia in late summer...." but quite impactful none the less?

3. Repelling the D-Day invasion. Could have easily happened.

Any of these, or how about all three?, could have positioned der Fuehrer to sue for peace down the road as a rest period to start WW3?

CONTRA: da BOMB. USA could invade Germany (Russia too?????) coming in Thru Southern Spain, France, Italy or Greece........a hard slog but why do that when we (eventually) had da Bomb?

USA, USA,.........USA. We were INVINCIBLE near the close of WW2. No one, the entire world, could not withstand da Bomb.

...........so of course, Hitler could have won the conventional type war he started with, but not the Nuclear War that would develop.

Hmmmm.......any reason to watch the video?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20636
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:05 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:It is an interesting thought experiment, isn’t it? Could Germany have won WW II?

I’ve read arguments both for and against. I’ll give it some thought once I get an opportunity to watch the video in full. I just got a glance at it.

(in a hurry) After reading 10 or so books this winter on the military history of the war - 4 from US pov, 4 from German pov, 3 from Soviet pov - my thought was that Germany had next to no chance of winning the war after attacking the USSR. The related question is when did this become evident.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13610
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:07 pm

a few weeks before the defeat at Stalingrad.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13610
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:39 pm

Watched the video. The guy basically presents faulty "what ifs" for Germany winning the war.....until the very end where he mentions da Bomb.

He does mention "small" Germany (without oil...which could have been had BY AGREEMENT with partner and good buddy Stalin) going up against the worlds 3 Great Powers (Who were they?) Russia he could have partnered with, UK is also small with a significant Navy susceptible to effective air power if not missiles, and the USA was not a great power until it woke up after Pearl Harbor.

That raises Germany NOT DECLARING WAR on the USA. THAT was a bone headed move. USA might have concentrated on Japan giving Hitler more time in Europe? But I almost did post that Hitlers demise on attacking Russia was foretold when USA with its manufacturing might joined the fray. Yamamoto knew it although the total flip of resources from consumer to a war footing is still breathtaking in its dedication..........
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20636
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:57 pm

If only the Nazis had had more - and more potent - Pervitin . . .
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Balmoral95
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Balmoral95 » Sat Jun 02, 2018 11:30 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:It is an interesting thought experiment, isn’t it? Could Germany have won WW II?

I’ve read arguments both for and against. I’ll give it some thought once I get an opportunity to watch the video in full. I just got a glance at it.

The related question is when did this become evident.



Dr. Todt thought the effort was done late Jan/early Feb. 1942.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7990
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:47 am

Ernst Udet committed suicide over it in November of 1941.
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

Balmoral95
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Balmoral95 » Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:15 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Ernst Udet committed suicide over it in November of 1941.


I'm not so sure: Udet was allegedly completely {!#%@} up on booze and alcohol, prone to depression and personally responsible for Luftwaffe production failures and had been a mess for years.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7990
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:01 am

Balmoral95 wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:Ernst Udet committed suicide over it in November of 1941.


I'm not so sure: Udet was allegedly completely {!#%@} up on booze and alcohol, prone to depression and personally responsible for Luftwaffe production failures and had been a mess for years.


You might be right, I glanced back through his biography and saw all that. Goering kept him sedated all the time because he became an embarrassment.
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20636
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:52 am

Balmoral95 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:It is an interesting thought experiment, isn’t it? Could Germany have won WW II?

I’ve read arguments both for and against. I’ll give it some thought once I get an opportunity to watch the video in full. I just got a glance at it.

The related question is when did this become evident.



Dr. Todt thought the effort was done late Jan/early Feb. 1942.

I think a tad earlier. I believe many German military leaders put it later, e.g., Kursk. One also often reads that the "turning point" was around the time of Stalingrad (IIRC Bellamy says that after Stalingrad the Germans couldn't win, but his narrative convinced me that it was earlier). Certainly the destruction of the Sixth Army - and the emotional fallout of that destruction - were important. Still, IMO two December 1941 developments were most crucial: a) the failure of the Moscow campaign and the Soviet counteroffensive early in the month, which really together registered the inability of Germany to land a knockout blow before 1942, exposing Germany to a war of attrition it lacked the means (from petroleum to industrial strength to military tradition and orientation) to win; b) the German declaration of war against US and US entry into the war (exacerbating the means which Germany lacked).

Germany’s strategy was to win a quick victory in 1941 by overpowering and outpacing the enemy; this strategy had failed by year’s end.

Why not Stalingrad? I keep thinking that Stalingrad was preceded by important setbacks to the German strategy for victory - Smolensk in summer 1941, the Moscow campaign - and successful relocation of the important governing USSR governing bodies and of Soviet industry eastward, the megalomania of Operation Blue and the failure of the Caucasus campaign, Soviet replenishments of forces and growing tactical and strategic capability, etc.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Balmoral95
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Balmoral95 » Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:38 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balmoral95 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:It is an interesting thought experiment, isn’t it? Could Germany have won WW II?

I’ve read arguments both for and against. I’ll give it some thought once I get an opportunity to watch the video in full. I just got a glance at it.

The related question is when did this become evident.



Dr. Todt thought the effort was done late Jan/early Feb. 1942.

I think a tad earlier. I believe many German military leaders put it later, e.g., Kursk. One also often reads that the "turning point" was around the time of Stalingrad (IIRC Atkinson says that after Stalingrad the Germans couldn't win, but his narrative convinced me that it was earlier). Certainly the destruction of the Sixth Army - and the emotional fallout of that destruction - were important. Still, IMO two December 1941 developments were most crucial: a) the failure of the Moscow campaign and the Soviet counteroffensive early in the month, which really together registered the inability of Germany to land a knockout blow before 1942, exposing Germany to a war of attrition it lacked the means (from petroleum to industrial strength to military tradition and orientation) to win; b) the German declaration of war against US and US entry into the war (exacerbating the means which Germany lacked).

Germany’s strategy was to win a quick victory in 1941 by overpowering and outpacing the enemy; this strategy had failed by year’s end.

Why not Stalingrad? I keep thinking that Stalingrad was preceded by important setbacks to the German strategy for victory - Smolensk in summer 1941, the Moscow campaign - and successful relocation of the important governing USSR governing bodies and of Soviet industry eastward, the megalomania of Operation Blue and the failure of the Caucasus campaign, Soviet replenishments of forces and growing tactical and strategic capability, etc.


Agreed.

And:

Horrendous intelligence failures/underestimates during planning phase

No strategic air component

Lack of modern/suitable transport

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20636
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:14 am

Yup (and rejection of cases where intelligence was good IIRC), yup, yup.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20636
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:56 am

Three more thoughts:

1) A question I've wondered about is German occupation policy in the East - the cruel administration which the Germans put in place, ruling with a blunt instrument rather than surgically exploiting anti-Soviet attitudes, which would have required of course allowing some scope for local collaborators to do more than serve Germans. This question is kind of, what if Rosenberg's views on the East had prevailed within the Third Reich? Erickson, who shows how the Soviets responded to Vlasov and other halting moves in such a direction, convinced me that the Soviets would have been able to survive a robust "Rosenberg" policy.

2) Bellamy has a nice map showing how the Germans' military was inadequate to the physical space they moved into in the USSR, where as they advanced the front lengthened (e.g., from 1600km to 2400km at Leningrad-Odessa to nearly double that at the Arkangel'sk-Astrakhan line), increasingly stretching German forces thin. Bellamy's conclusion: "The country was too big for the armies" which the Germans sent into it. He describes this "density/dispersion" problem as "the Eurasian funnel," with a narrow western approach widening to the east. Transport also took on critical dimensions, as Balmoral posted, in this context, with difficult river barriers and poor, spotty roads compounding the distances problem. When the Germans failed to destroy the Soviet military (and the enemy's industrial capacity) in the fall of 1941, they confronted a situation which they were not designed to (and likely could not have been designed to) cope with.

3) Also in Bellamy are some revealing GDP tables, showing what Germany's superior (early) military tactical ability had to overcome in a "total war": in 1942 Allied GDP was double that of Germany and its allies; Soviet production fell but did not collapse in 1941-1942, as Germany sought to make happen (the relocation of Soviet industrial plants the Urals and Central Asia saw to that) - by 1944 Allied GDP bettered that of Germany and its allies by three times and by 1945, by five times. (Looking this up in Bellamy, I see that he really stresses US entry into the war as a critical factor making German victory impossible, whilst also highlighting factors on the Eastern front and improving Soviet military strategy, tactics, and performance, Soviet economic output, etc.)
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:33 pm

If the criterion was "capitulation/ceasefire/peace with everyone after occupying most of Europe", then, maybe, Germany could have won.
But for a decade, tops, before the occupations would have become unsustainable.
"'I don't know what I was doing wrong, but I promise I won't do it again."
- Daddy Pig

Reaktori
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 12:17 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Reaktori » Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:48 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Three more thoughts:

1) A question I've wondered about is German occupation policy in the East - the cruel administration which the Germans put in place, ruling with a blunt instrument rather than surgically exploiting anti-Soviet attitudes, which would have required of course allowing some scope for local collaborators to do more than serve Germans. This question is kind of, what if Rosenberg's views on the East had prevailed within the Third Reich? Erickson, who shows how the Soviets responded to Vlasov and other halting moves in such a direction, convinced me that the Soviets would have been able to survive a robust "Rosenberg" policy.



To add to this, the Rosenberg policy would be impossible unless a fundamental change in how the Nazis occupied the Eastern Areas happened. One of the main Nazi concerns regarding their war was how they were going to feed their troops, as well as the homefront. Basically, this meant that the populace of the occupied Eastern territories was to be essentially starved to death to supply both the Wehrmacht in the east, as well as the German home front (the "Hunger Plan" relates to this.)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20636
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:39 pm

Agree, which is one reason why the Rosenberg approach wasn't adopted. It conflicted with German war aims. Good point. This issue has always bugged me, as I'm often a worrywart, but a softer approach just wasn't in the cards, not even in less essential contexts like Greece.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Balmoral95
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Balmoral95 » Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:44 pm

A search at AHF for "Barbarossa" yields 14,844 matches over 990 pages...

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1859
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Denying-History » Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:30 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You don't have to assume too much that is reasonable to make the outcome a closer call.

1. What if Hitler had not invaded Russia? HUGE FREAKING CHANGE. Carve up Poland keeping Stalin happy and let Stalin get into a fight later with Japan.

2. What if Goering had finished the Brits at Dunkirk? Not the impact of "starting a land war against Russia in late summer...." but quite impactful none the less?

3. Repelling the D-Day invasion. Could have easily happened.

Any of these, or how about all three?, could have positioned der Fuehrer to sue for peace down the road as a rest period to start WW3?

CONTRA: da BOMB. USA could invade Germany (Russia too?????) coming in Thru Southern Spain, France, Italy or Greece........a hard slog but why do that when we (eventually) had da Bomb?

USA, USA,.........USA. We were INVINCIBLE near the close of WW2. No one, the entire world, could not withstand da Bomb.

...........so of course, Hitler could have won the conventional type war he started with, but not the Nuclear War that would develop.

Hmmmm.......any reason to watch the video?


Your missing the main point that he was arguing. The main point he is pushing is that the Germans were in a constant state of meterial shortage by Stalingrad and really couldn't have turned around the invasion of Russia. It was ether Hitler attacked or got attacked a year or two down the road.

Really there is no way to let the Germans win WW2 without invoking hindsight bias. He's saying the general excuses people say in favor of the Germans in relation to operation Barbarossa were wrong which are the most general ones.
« I want people to experience exactly what it meant to enter a gas chamber at Auschwitz, I want them to walk down the stairs into the chamber, to stand before the ovens and see that this was insane and criminal. I want it to be a slap in the face. You can’t create memory, but you can create an experience that is as powerful as memory. »
- Jean Claude Pressac

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13610
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:35 am

Denying-History wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You don't have to assume too much that is reasonable to make the outcome a closer call.

1. What if Hitler had not invaded Russia? HUGE FREAKING CHANGE. Carve up Poland keeping Stalin happy and let Stalin get into a fight later with Japan.

2. What if Goering had finished the Brits at Dunkirk? Not the impact of "starting a land war against Russia in late summer...." but quite impactful none the less?

3. Repelling the D-Day invasion. Could have easily happened.

Any of these, or how about all three?, could have positioned der Fuehrer to sue for peace down the road as a rest period to start WW3?

CONTRA: da BOMB. USA could invade Germany (Russia too?????) coming in Thru Southern Spain, France, Italy or Greece........a hard slog but why do that when we (eventually) had da Bomb?
]
USA, USA,.........USA. We were INVINCIBLE near the close of WW2. No one, the entire world, could not withstand da Bomb.

...........so of course, Hitler could have won the conventional type war he started with, but not the Nuclear War that would develop.

Hmmmm.......any reason to watch the video?[/quote

Your missing the main point that he was arguing. The main point he is pushing is that the Germans were in a constant state of meterial shortage by Stalingrad and really couldn't have turned around the invasion of Russia. It was ether Hitler attacked or got attacked a year or two down the road.

Really there is no way to let the Germans win WW2 without invoking hindsight bias. He's saying the general excuses people say in favor of the Germans in relation to operation Barbarossa were wrong which are the most general ones.


1. Your missing the main point that he was arguing //// No, I specifically addressed it by saying he makes the wrong argument. Its like saying you can't build a machine that flies and you demonstrate this by throwing a bucket of mud into the air. See?==>it doesn't fly. but I say" put some wings on that bucket and a powered propellor....HUGE CHANGE.

Now......what is your best guess as to the outcome of the war, absent da bomb, if Hitler had not invaded Russia? If Russia had granted all mineral and resources necessary for Hitler to run his machine? What then?

Actually, this delineates a better question: at what point in time was the War Lost to Germany? ....... and I would say it was lost when Hitler invaded Russian thereby turning an ally with vast resources into a dedicated enemy on a second front.

I don't think you understand how these questions work..................
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1859
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Denying-History » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:45 pm

Well, Bobbos back on ignore for being a retard again.
« I want people to experience exactly what it meant to enter a gas chamber at Auschwitz, I want them to walk down the stairs into the chamber, to stand before the ovens and see that this was insane and criminal. I want it to be a slap in the face. You can’t create memory, but you can create an experience that is as powerful as memory. »
- Jean Claude Pressac

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7990
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:52 pm

Feels good, don’t it?
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13610
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:28 pm

Like Hitler, you ignore what you ought to pay attention to.

what is your best guess as to the outcome of the war, absent da bomb, if Hitler had not invaded Russia?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20636
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:44 pm

missing the point, and dispensing platitudes dressed up as philosophy: his raison d'être
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby psychiatry is a scam » Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:16 pm

future topic - why the USA could not have won ww3

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13610
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:31 pm

If WW3 is a trade war as has been often suggested..............we ain't winning it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1859
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Denying-History » Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:02 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: the outcome of the war, absent da bomb, if Hitler had not invaded Russia?


This was addressed in his video, my previous reply and on his Twitter. It’s possible Stalin would have taken the action to Hitler after the mess of the red army was in had been settled.

https://twitter.com/tank_memes/status/1 ... 93920?s=21

“Like Hitler” you falsely insinuate to know more on any of these topics then anyone here. Take a note of your position on almost everyone’s block list.
« I want people to experience exactly what it meant to enter a gas chamber at Auschwitz, I want them to walk down the stairs into the chamber, to stand before the ovens and see that this was insane and criminal. I want it to be a slap in the face. You can’t create memory, but you can create an experience that is as powerful as memory. »
- Jean Claude Pressac

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13610
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:31 am

Denying-History wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: the outcome of the war, absent da bomb, if Hitler had not invaded Russia?


This was addressed in his video, my previous reply and on his Twitter. It’s possible Stalin would have taken the action to Hitler after the mess of the red army was in had been settled.
In my too quick review, all I noticed was the hypothetical was taken up during Operation Barbarossa whereas the proper time point would have been right at the start. I AGREE. Quite possible Stalin could have decided to attack Hitler. That ADMITS he could have decided not to attack Germany or to attack China or Japan as easier targets?

The better hypothesis remains untouched: what is your best guess as to the outcome of the war, absent da bomb, if Hitler had not invaded Russia?

Denying-History wrote: “Like Hitler” you falsely insinuate to know more on any of these topics then anyone here.
Oh my goodness! Where do you get THAT idea from? Asking a question actually DENIES KNOWLEDGE. Please copy and paste what constitutes for you a claim of knowledge. Better yet that I know more than anyone else? In the Trump thread, you will see I have stated just the opposite.

Denying-History wrote: Take a note of your position on almost everyone’s block list.
Like Stalin: what do you think that "should" mean? Does mean???? What should I do in response?===>observing it doesn't bother me at all? What activates me is SOUND ANALYSIS/ARGUMENT. Whining like little kiddies, doesn't do it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13610
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:42 am

Actually, an even better question, being more grounded in the facts that would be present in most scenarios is: What most likely would have happened if Hitler had NOT attacked Russia? The Bear and the Swastika united to carve up Europe and Asia?

Note the missing element: no bomb limitation.

With the limitation removed......it would be most likely BS would have conquered Europe and Asia including but perhaps not Engand if not helped by Ireland????

So...........its even kinda fun..........a World where E&A are occupied by BS, USA has da bomb. Could da bomb be used effectively? Killing that many civilians to achieve an end goal?.............WHILE BS is suing for Peace??? Would Truman have been so single minded? Surrender without conditions? I see some pros and cons to all the positions.

Counterfactuals. Name the facts.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Balmoral95
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Balmoral95 » Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:44 am

Douchebag says what?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13610
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:07 am

HEY!!!! Balls no More: You have me on ignore........remember??? Everyone benefits. Except thats not true. Its lack of imagination that cannot find a spark in the most barren of landscapes.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Balmoral95
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Balmoral95 » Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:HEY!!!! Balls no More: You have me on ignore........remember??? Everyone benefits. Except thats not true. Its lack of imagination that cannot find a spark in the most barren of landscapes.


Nope, never had you on ignore, though I find it easy to ignore you and I certainly have encouraged others to do same.

"Barren landscapes", why yes, that sums you up very nicely. ""Douchebag" cuts to the chase.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13610
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:19 am

Sorry Balls. The only thing that counts for legitimate concern is the question on the table: How COULD Germany have won the war?

I don't know why you guys aren't more interested in the question? ............... Weird.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Aaron Richards » Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:45 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:How COULD Germany have won the war?


1) By not attacking the Soviet Union (Operatsiya Groza is a hoax cooked up by Igor Bunich and Viktor Suvorow)
2) By not declaring war on the United States and severing its alliance with Japan before December 1941
3) Gaining and maintaining air-superiority over British Isles and the waters surrounding them, using the European continent as its aircraft carriers.
4) Pulling a Midway on the RN, i.e. aircraft > ships
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel "Holocaust Documents", where I fight back the sea of antisemitism & conspiracy theories that has taken over its comment section: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSX ... Un5jIhWm7g
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13610
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:57 pm

thanks AR: some good maybes that have good meat on them. You kinda left out the fact that USA would have developed da bomb. How does that calculate in?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7990
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:20 pm

Aaron Richards wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:How COULD Germany have won the war?


1) By not attacking the Soviet Union (Operatsiya Groza is a hoax cooked up by Igor Bunich and Viktor Suvorow)
2) By not declaring war on the United States and severing its alliance with Japan before December 1941
3) Gaining and maintaining air-superiority over British Isles and the waters surrounding them, using the European continent as its aircraft carriers.
4) Pulling a Midway on the RN, i.e. aircraft > ships



I’ve thought about this some based upon some books I read.

So, how could Germany have won the war?

I think the key is Hitler turning away from Britain and focusing on the USSR.

The Battle of Britain was a necessity in order to gain air superiority over the English Channel in the event of an invasion. It failed due to faulty intelligence and some bad decisions plus the Germans attacked into the strength of the British military, the RAF (you can fault Chamberlain for many things but that is one of the things you can’t. Chamberlain started the process of modernizing and building up the RAF’s fighter wing).

So, after the Battle of Britain and the poor results of the Blitz what other choices did Hitler have? Hitler turned on the USSR because that’s something he always wanted. We all agree this was a huge mistake. So, what about continuing with the British? This was possible in North Africa with the keys being Malta (to prevent attacks on German and Italian supply convoys), Egypt and the Suez Canal (Egypt and Suez go together). So, instead of a patchwork Africa Corps under Rommel you get a real German Army to drive the British out of North Africa and seize the Suez Canal. A prerequisite to this is the seizure of Malta, done with Student’s paratroopers.

Let’s assume that Hitler decides to keep fighting the British. In the Fall of 1940 Hitler tasks Student with the seizure of Malta and the designation of a German army to assist Mussolini with the British in North Africa. Or maybe he does this in the Spring of 1941. Malta falls and the German Army under Rommel crosses over and engages the British. At this point the British are no match for the Germans and by the Fall of 1941 Germany takes Cairo and shortly after that the Suez Canal. This is a catastrophe for the British, it severs the lifeline for their empire and gives Germany access to ME oil. As a result Churchill’s Government falls (this actually almost happened in the Summer of 1942) and someone like Halifax takes his place.

Halifax proves more receptive to a negotiated peace and Britain and Germany make peace. Hitler offers face saving gestures to smooth things over and the British turn their attention to the Pacific. Without Britain the US loses interest in Europe and also turn towards the Pacific. As a result there is no bombing campaign, no American involvement in North Africa and no D-Day.

Only then does Hitler turn towards the USSR. As an added bonus he now adds a fourth prong to the attack, from the South. With this prong there is no need to detach the armor from Army Group Center to take Kiev (which is what happened in the Summer of 1941). He also has ME oil to help the fuel situation.

So, instead of the German attack in June 1941 it happens in June of 1942. Does it succeed? I have no idea. I think the conditions for it to succeed are much better. I think we can’t discount the possibility of Germany and the USSR fighting each other to exhaustion so we get some type of negotiated peace between the two sides.
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13610
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:34 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Aaron Richards wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:How COULD Germany have won the war?


1) By not attacking the Soviet Union (Operatsiya Groza is a hoax cooked up by Igor Bunich and Viktor Suvorow)
2) By not declaring war on the United States and severing its alliance with Japan before December 1941
3) Gaining and maintaining air-superiority over British Isles and the waters surrounding them, using the European continent as its aircraft carriers.
4) Pulling a Midway on the RN, i.e. aircraft > ships



I’ve thought about this some based upon some books I read.

So, how could Germany have won the war?

I think the key is Hitler turning away from Britain and focusing on the USSR.

The Battle of Britain was a necessity in order to gain air superiority over the English Channel in the event of an invasion. It failed due to faulty intelligence and some bad decisions plus the Germans attacked into the strength of the British military, the RAF (you can fault Chamberlain for many things but that is one of the things you can’t. Chamberlain started the process of modernizing and building up the RAF’s fighter wing).

So, after the Battle of Britain and the poor results of the Blitz what other choices did Hitler have?


To regroup, re-arm, build up: do it again if required. Another option: resources into quarantining UK with a submarine net. No reason to "conquer" UK if you can isolate them to a nullity.

Jeffk 1970 wrote: So, what about continuing with the British? This was possible in North Africa with the keys being Malta (to prevent attacks on German and Italian supply convoys), Egypt and the Suez Canal (Egypt and Suez go together). So, instead of a patchwork Africa Corps under Rommel you get a real German Army to drive the British out of North Africa and seize the Suez Canal. A prerequisite to this is the seizure of Malta, done with Student’s paratroopers.
Makes sense with a two fold objective which is to seize that land and resources which also weakens Britain for an invasion later if desired.

Jeffk 1970 wrote: Halifax proves more receptive to a negotiated peace and Britain and Germany make peace. Hitler offers face saving gestures to smooth things over and the British turn their attention to the Pacific. Without Britain the US loses interest in Europe and also turn towards the Pacific. As a result there is no bombing campaign, no American involvement in North Africa and no D-Day.
Seems to me that the Japanese aren't going to let the British back in without objection....and the Brit Navy is going to be kept close to home because "Peace Treaties"....just a piece of paper. And could the Brits really join up with USA to fight the Japanese and not violate whatever peace terms were struck? Lots of unidentified issues. Counterfactually, if I were Hitler, and did not have a second front in the USSR to deal with....I'd look long and hard at the UK....the front door to Europe and close ally to the USA who is coming on strong all over the Pacific. If Hitler weren't nuts, he ought to recognize plenty of Lebensraum to develop fully West of Russia. "How much land is enough?"


Jeffk 1970 wrote: Only then does Hitler turn towards the USSR. As an added bonus he now adds a fourth prong to the attack, from the South. With this prong there is no need to detach the armor from Army Group Center to take Kiev (which is what happened in the Summer of 1941). He also has ME oil to help the fuel situation.
There is merit in allowing that Hitlers animosity towards Stalin would continue making USSR a constant target.......but.... if acceptable fuel/resources/support are established ...why start a new war with Britain and USA still a threat? Also my own first guess was to let USSR start a war against Japan? Lots of variables. I thought most of the oil in the Middle East was discovered only after the war?

Jeffk 1970 wrote: So, instead of the German attack in June 1941 it happens in June of 1942. Does it succeed? I have no idea. I think the conditions for it to succeed are much better. I think we can’t discount the possibility of Germany and the USSR fighting each other to exhaustion so we get some type of negotiated peace between the two sides.
maybe it comes down to just exactly what did Hitler, close staff who tried to assassinate him repeatedly, really want from the War when not overheated? If it was unification of all Germanic Peoples with a 1000 Year Reich...no reason to invade Russia. But if he relaxed, regrouped, rearmed, rested, got his new super weapons into production....sure....taken Britain...take USSR. I can see that.

A Thought: Yes, invading USSR was a bone headed mistake BECAUSE: even if he had "won" it would have spread him too thin and left a precarious situation of endless continuing conflict. SO....maybe the biggest mistake really was to declare War on the USA? And the question immediately then is would the USA have declared war on Germany eventually anyway especially given the alignment of Germany with Japan? So....1. Not invade USSR (ever, or until.... you know). 2. Not declare War on USA. 3. Not make a pact with Japan: at most declare neutrality?

And we still have: da bomb.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7990
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:01 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
So, after the Battle of Britain and the poor results of the Blitz what other choices did Hitler have?

To regroup, re-arm, build up: do it again if required.


So, the option you give is to run right back into the fighter wall protecting Great Britain. Germany faced resource shortages throughout the war.

Another option: resources into quarantining UK with a submarine net. No reason to "conquer" UK if you can isolate them to a nullity.


Except that you run the risk of accidentally sinking American ships which risks a repeat of WW I. Germany also lacked the resources to build the submarines and naval vessels required to enforce a blockade.



Halifax proves more receptive to a negotiated peace and Britain and Germany make peace. Hitler offers face saving gestures to smooth things over and the British turn their attention to the Pacific. Without Britain the US loses interest in Europe and also turn towards the Pacific. As a result there is no bombing campaign, no American involvement in North Africa and no D-Day.

Seems to me that the Japanese aren't going to let the British back in without objection....


Hitler never really cared about what the Japanese wanted. Their objectives were not the same as Germany’s and the Japanese and Germans never truly coordinated their efforts. Hitler never informed the Japanese about his attack on the USSR and the Japanese never informed Hitler about their attack on American or British bases and territories. If Hitler could’ve gotten the British to the table and negotiated a peace he would’ve done so.

and the Brit Navy is going to be kept close to home because "Peace Treaties"....just a piece of paper.


Whether or not the British Navy stayed close is irrelevant. They would’ve gone to the Pacific in any case when/if the Japanese attacked. My opinion but I think they would look at it the same way I do, it’s more important to counter a real threat than a theoretical one. Also the Germans were due to be tied up in the USSR.

And could the Brits really join up with USA to fight the Japanese and not violate whatever peace terms were struck? Lots of unidentified issues.


Why? Any peace terms would deal with the Germans and British, not the Japanese. I think Hitler would’ve dealt with the British fairly leniently or wind up in the same position. Make the terms too harsh and the British lose nothing by continuing to fight on. The Germans could not counter the British Fleet so resupply was not really a problem. The point is to get the British to stop fighting.

Counterfactually, if I were Hitler, and did not have a second front in the USSR to deal with....I'd look long and hard at the UK....the front door to Europe and close ally to the USA who is coming on strong all over the Pacific. If Hitler weren't nuts, he ought to recognize plenty of Lebensraum to develop fully West of Russia. "How much land is enough?"


Your problem is (and continues to be) that you don’t understand Hitler’s ideological basis. He considered the USSR an enormous threat due to the connection with Jews and Bolshevism. He also considered the USSR an untapped resource that would free Germany of any obligation to anyone. He wanted to eradicate this threat and tap this resource for German benefit. The USSR stood in his way so wiping them off the board paved the way for German hegemony in this area.


Also my own first guess was to let USSR start a war against Japan?


If you knew anything about this you’d know that the Japanese and the USSR fought a series of battles and the Japanese lost. If the USSR wanted a war they could’ve gotten one.

I thought most of the oil in the Middle East was discovered only after the war?


Google is your friend. Use it.

maybe it comes down to just exactly what did Hitler, close staff who tried to assassinate him repeatedly, really want from the War when not overheated?


Maybe you should read a book about it.
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Postby Balsamo » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:09 pm

For once, i find this short youtube video quite good.

Actually, its conclusion sums it up : " Germany was just too small with too few resource to win against the three Super powers" at once.
I would go even further by saying that by 1939, it had not the resource to win against France and Great Britain...That is of course theoretically.
Hitler was a gambler who believed in his luck...even more he was a bluffer winning games while holding no aces. I really came to believe that he really risked a global conflict just to get what he actually wanted : Poland! He sincerely hoped that a deal could be reach after this victory. That day of september 39, he lost his game.

By the end of 1939, Germany was in a terrible situation: No navy to challenge the Royal Navy, no tanks to challenge the French ones, maybe was the Luftwaffe even with the allies air forces.
Hitler's and Mainstein unbelievable victory over France actually made things worse. The speed of this victory gave the Nazis a false sense of invincibility. But France has only food to offer, but no oil/fuel, no rare metals and materials. So as far as the resources are concerned, the situation was even worse after the victory of the campaign of 1940 than before.
The European continent ( at least the part control by Nazi Germany) is poor on the resources needed to build up military strength, and has very few oil fields. It was then no even self sufficient on food...Germany had a food deficit of 10% before the war.

The UK knew very well there was little it could do but to gain time. Given the strength of the Royal Navy there was just no way Germany could have invaded England.

Ironically, as it is what seems to be the issue, the only slight chance (if it ever existed) for Germany to win at least partly the war was right THEN.
Germany had only three choices from there:
1./ to negotiate peace with Great Britain...It tried and failed
2./ to try getting the resources it needed and break the hope of a reversal of the situation on the continent, which was the path chosen, as the resources it needed was in the East.
3./ To slain Great Britain right away.

So if the exercise is to evaluate a chance for Germany to have won the war, it is of course to be imagined in the context of the 3rd option.
For example he could have forced Spain into submission by massing troops at the border and forcing Franco to let German troops in and seize Gibraltar. The same way he could have done the same after the campaign in the Balkan to obtain the cooperation of Turkey, at least the authorization to let troops getting across this counrty to strike the middel East and then reach Egypt. Without Gibraltar and the Suez canal, the british would have been unable to control the Mediterranean see, and would have been unable to protect its possession in Afrika...India would have been way too far to supply London. And as an opposite would have let India defenseless against the Japanese.
On a purely theoretical view, the oil fields of Arabia and Irak were much closer than those of the Soviet Caucasus. One could add that the Antisemitism of the Nazi Regimes would have been welcomed in the middle east region.

This situation coupled with the successes in the battle of the Atlantic COULD have eventually forced Great Britain into negotiation.
Then "Da Bomb" would not have had been an issue as the USA would have stayed out of the war, with or without FDR...

Of course, that scenario would have supposed Germany to have some plan regarding the west...well it did not have any...this is why none if this were even really thought through.

Once he had a peace treaty with Britain, well then maybe...but just maybe...would have had Barbarossa a chance, if and that is a big if, the Nazis had been pragmatic and realistic, which they were fortunately not.
The video is right in the sense that Russia going from Smolensk to the Pacific could and still cannot be invaded. But, the Bolshevist regime could be overthrown. And in this perspective, the fall of Moscow would have proven decisive, and this is the only fault i see in this video. Had the Nazis REALLY liberated the UKRAINE, the UKRAINE would have joined (at least the western part), The white Russians would have taken their revenge and i think there would have been a possibility for the Regime to collapse and the signature of a new Brest Litosvk treaty...Other treaties would have given Turkey their empire back in exchange of an easy access to the soviet caucasus, etc...

A victory in the middle east and the Mediterranean acquired, there would have been a possibility for the Nazis to gain some military bases in the region and even in Iran, that would have put even more pressure on the Soviet Union...

Had such a situation existed by 1942, the USA would have started to negotiate with Hitler and we would be living the hell on earth...We being the Europeans, of course.
But fortunately, this is all pure fantasy.

PS: Sorry Jeffk, i have failed to see your post before writing mine...


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest