Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

History Discussion of History up to Circa 1990

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-07-2017, 04:15 AM   #201
fakekidpoker
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 392
Re: Losing WW II

Hitler couldn't just stand still, doing that wouldmake him not Hitler.

Nazi ideology was all about conquering the East and destroying the lesser races.

Now, in this timeline if Hitler had been able to stop and make peace with Stalin in 41 at the height of the Eastern campaign then maybe he could win as I don't believe the Allies would be willing to pay the price in dead which would be in the millions for America and Britain.
fakekidpoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2017, 02:47 PM   #202
57 On Red
veteran
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,494
Re: Losing WW II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth View Post
Hi DoTheMath:

Couldn't going to full war production earlier had helped with standardization. My understanding is that the Germans used many different types of tanks, made in many different countries, in their invasion of Russia. Thus when a spare part was needed often none was to be found.

But full war production might have meant that more spare parts would be available and more of their tanks, etc. could have been kept going at top efficiency. Thus the German invasion force wouldn't have been any bigger, but might have stayed at top operational status for longer.

Best wishes,
Mason
The Nazis ruled by consent and not by coercion. They had a policy of 'guns *and* butter,' to keep the public sweet, even though Germany's raw-materials position didn't really allow it and there wasn't much butter in the shops at all. On the outbreak of war in 1939, Germany already had bread rationing, which Britain wouldn't see until the terrible winter of 1947. But Germans just went along with this, as Nazi policy was to preserve an air of normality: there would be only a short war, with minimum inconvenience, and then everything would be fine. The British immediately slaughtered all their zoo animals and went on to a full war footing. But the Germans kept their zoos open till 1945, because the Herrenvolk must not suffer inconvenience.

Only in 1941, under the pressure of RAF bombing, did German war factories go over to 24-hour shift work (which the British had been doing for years). Until then, it was not politically acceptable -- it was not part of the Fuhrer's plan -- to admit that conditions were no longer normal and that the Party had dropped the people right in it.
57 On Red is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2017, 03:19 PM   #203
57 On Red
veteran
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,494
Re: Losing WW II

Quote:
Originally Posted by fakekidpoker View Post
Hitler couldn't just stand still, doing that wouldmake him not Hitler.

Nazi ideology was all about conquering the East and destroying the lesser races.

Now, in this timeline if Hitler had been able to stop and make peace with Stalin in 41 at the height of the Eastern campaign then maybe he could win as I don't believe the Allies would be willing to pay the price in dead which would be in the millions for America and Britain.
It wasn't possible for Hitler to make peace with Stalin after launching Operation Barbarossa. The whole policy of Nazism was to destroy the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, this was premised on taking Britain out of the game first and avoiding the 1914-18 nightmare of naval blockade and 'war on two fronts.' And that didn't come off.

This from General Galland's biographer Dan Baker, 'The Views of Adolf Galland', Aeroplane Monthly, July 2000, relying on his conversations with Galland:

Quote:
Unknown to the majority of his [that is Hitler's] senior staff, and to almost all the population, by early spring of 1940 Germany was in dire economic straits. In the preceding year, due entirely to the British blockade of the German maritime trade, the value of imports had fallen by 60 per cent, tonnage had slipped to a mere 25 per cent of its value in January 1939, and petroleum production and reserve stocks had fallen by one third and two thirds respectively.

Hitler therefore pressed hard for an early offensive to break Britain's stranglehold and reverse the blockade of Germany by destroying the Royal Navy and smashing its ports, while denying Britain imports essential to its prosecution of the war. To this end the U-boat offensive was crucial. Galland was informed by Hitler that he had been unwilling to grant the Luftwaffe exclusive responsibility for blocking the British ports without a pre-emptive land assault. He insisted on the Wehrmacht gaining as much territory as possible along the Channel and North Sea coast, from where the air assault on Britain's maritime capability could be launched.

The entire purpose of the attack on France and the Low Countries was to get at Britain, whose resources and power, he told Galland, he feared more than those of any other country on the continent, including Russia, for whom he had nothing but contempt. Thus the outcome of the Battle of Britain became pivotal to the fate of Germany.
Hitler was right, and wrong. The main threat did come from Britain, but not in the form of the naval blockade. Instead it was the bomber offensive. By 1943 RAF Bomber Command was holding down more German manpower, weaponry and materiel than the Red Army. The Germans were forced to devote more resources to the fight against Bomber Command -- a fight they could never win, because the defeat of the night bomber was technically beyond their means -- than to the fight against the Red Army. In the view of the German official historian Horst ter Boog, this is the single most decisive reason for Germany's defeat.

Last edited by 57 On Red; 12-08-2017 at 03:31 PM.
57 On Red is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2017, 03:37 PM   #204
Husker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Husker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Holsten's Diner
Posts: 10,763
Re: Losing WW II

Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red View Post
The Nazis ruled by consent and not by coercion. They had a policy of 'guns *and* butter,' to keep the public sweet, even though Germany's raw-materials position didn't really allow it and there wasn't much butter in the shops at all. On the outbreak of war in 1939, Germany already had bread rationing, which Britain wouldn't see until the terrible winter of 1947. But Germans just went along with this, as Nazi policy was to preserve an air of normality: there would be only a short war, with minimum inconvenience, and then everything would be fine. The British immediately slaughtered all their zoo animals and went on to a full war footing. But the Germans kept their zoos open till 1945, because the Herrenvolk must not suffer inconvenience.

Only in 1941, under the pressure of RAF bombing, did German war factories go over to 24-hour shift work (which the British had been doing for years). Until then, it was not politically acceptable -- it was not part of the Fuhrer's plan -- to admit that conditions were no longer normal and that the Party had dropped the people right in it.
To add to the above, the Nazi ideology also initially prevented women from taking on roles in industry, something the British had no such qualms about. Although the Nazis did make use of foreign slaves in many areas instead.

I think it was clear the British knew the war was going to last a fair length of time and were preparing for that from the outset. Lord Alan Brooke, who commanded a Corp in in France at the outset of the war complained frequently in his diary about the possible failure of the chiefs of staff to concentrate everything they had on the defence of France instead of looking at holding Divisions back for other theatres and bombing German industry on the Rhur instead of German troops during the invasion.
Husker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2017, 04:13 PM   #205
57 On Red
veteran
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,494
Re: Losing WW II

Brooke was principal author of the rather brilliant strategy of 'overstretch' -- piling critical commitments on to the Germans over and above their problems on the Eastern Front. So, while the Americans were gung-ho for a suicidal cross-Channel attack in 1942 (Operation Roundup) or 1943 (Operation Bolero), Brooke talked them into some necessary diversions while they found their feet, starting with the invasion of French North Africa in late 1942 (Operation Torch), which went well, but the Kasserine Pass fiasco showed how disastrous it would have been for the Americans to take on the Germans in North-West Europe at that point. Then Brooke talked them into the invasion of Sicily (Operation Husky), which showed they still weren't ready, as US C-47 pilots panicked at the mere sight of flak and dropped their paratroopers into the sea and drowned them, and Patton engaged in a silly race to Palermo which didn't really help much at all and revealed what a tight rein that particular general needed to be kept on.

Brooke then insisted on the invasion of mainland Italy in September '43, which, combined with the RAF bomber offensive against Italy, knocked Italy clean out of the war on the Axis side and forced the Germans to defend that front by themselves. And they'd never got enough air support for the task because of the Allied bomber offensive against Germany. And that was the 'overstretch', which, along with the extra time bought for US shipyards to construct the necessary volume of landing craft and for US troop build-up in England, made Operation Overlord viable in June '44.
57 On Red is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:29 AM   #206
fakekidpoker
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 392
Re: Losing WW II

Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red View Post
It wasn't possible for Hitler to make peace with Stalin after launching Operation Barbarossa. The whole policy of Nazism was to destroy the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, this was premised on taking Britain out of the game first and avoiding the 1914-18 nightmare of naval blockade and 'war on two fronts.' And that didn't come off.

This from General Galland's biographer Dan Baker, 'The Views of Adolf Galland', Aeroplane Monthly, July 2000, relying on his conversations with Galland:



Hitler was right, and wrong. The main threat did come from Britain, but not in the form of the naval blockade. Instead it was the bomber offensive. By 1943 RAF Bomber Command was holding down more German manpower, weaponry and materiel than the Red Army. The Germans were forced to devote more resources to the fight against Bomber Command -- a fight they could never win, because the defeat of the night bomber was technically beyond their means -- than to the fight against the Red Army. In the view of the German official historian Horst ter Boog, this is the single most decisive reason for Germany's defeat.
Yes I don't believe Hitler would make peace that early unless it was something huge that the Soviets would never offer, i've read some sources saying he would be willing if they gave him Ukraine but don't know how reliable they are.

I wonder how the war goes if the States force Britain into Sledgehammer in 42.. does the public quickly lose intrest in the War after seeing all those dead quickly?
fakekidpoker is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online