Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
that was an bad move on his part. Yet another time when the generals have a good plan, Hitler comes along and ****s it up.
Best WW2 General
- Thread starter Sarevok
- Start date
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
As it is mentioned above the western allies needed the soviets to fight against Hitler. And the German forces in 1944/45 fought nearly only for Germany- for Hitler they didn´t fight for a long time now. Most Germans didn´t want Hitler as ruler, but he was a dictator under whom I don´t want to live. They were mostly no Nazis but only soldiers fighting for their side.
If Hitler died in 20th July 1944 it was almost too late for a mild peace for Germany but only almost. Germany had still the capablities to beat the Allies hard and deadly. Much harder than they did because of Hitler. And if they wanted to destroy Germany what nation should get the place? USSR? Stalin was feared and only an ally because of Hitlers attack. Churchill thought a new war was coming shortly after the war with Germany- against Russia. And he was right, but it was not a "hot" war...
France? France was beaten and still occupied. No strenghth for some years. They were not able to fill the German power. The UK was also too weak and the US had not teritories in Europe. They needed Germany and it was clear in 1944 as well as in 1948 (Berlin Air Bridge). So a democratic Germany which lost a war was not a big danger for Europe and if embedded in western treaties (NATO, UN, EC/ EU) a worthy ally against the Russians.
That´s why in 1944 such a peace was possible.
Adler
If Hitler died in 20th July 1944 it was almost too late for a mild peace for Germany but only almost. Germany had still the capablities to beat the Allies hard and deadly. Much harder than they did because of Hitler. And if they wanted to destroy Germany what nation should get the place? USSR? Stalin was feared and only an ally because of Hitlers attack. Churchill thought a new war was coming shortly after the war with Germany- against Russia. And he was right, but it was not a "hot" war...
France? France was beaten and still occupied. No strenghth for some years. They were not able to fill the German power. The UK was also too weak and the US had not teritories in Europe. They needed Germany and it was clear in 1944 as well as in 1948 (Berlin Air Bridge). So a democratic Germany which lost a war was not a big danger for Europe and if embedded in western treaties (NATO, UN, EC/ EU) a worthy ally against the Russians.
That´s why in 1944 such a peace was possible.
Adler
Case
The horror, the horror
In what way? Rommel's forces were equivalent to about 1% of the forces in action on the Eastern Front, where the war was going to be won or lost, and which were also desperate for reinforcements.
The desert war was a sideshow for Germany, and Rommel was lucky to have recieved the resources he did get. The prospect of advancing through the Middle East was a pipe dream which the Germans had no realistic means of ever carrying out, something which Hitler correctly concluded. The only realistic payoff Germany could hope to gain from the war in North Africa was that which she suceeded in achieving: encouraging the British Commonwealth to waste its resources in an essentially pointless campaign.
If Rommel hadn't been so incompetant as to outrun his supply he could have prolonged this sucess for longer then he did. Instead, he advanced too far and compounded the error by trying to defend an indefensible line.
And a good thing too.
(Incidently, I hardly see how diverting a large chunk of the German Army away from the critical theatre to carry out a logisitcally impossible march across the Arabian desert in a doomed attempt to capture oilfields which the British would be certain to destroy counts as a 'good plan'.)
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Ok, I dont know which 1944 Germany you know, but most things Ive read dont correspond to your assumptions so easily. Germany was embedded with Nazi ideology, the police, the Gestapo, the Hitler youth, the Newspapers, the armed forces, and many other aspects of the country all were in some degree (and most nearly totally) controlled by Hitler or his minions. The soldiers may not have all been fighting for Hitler I agree, but many in the German high command were either loyal to the regime, loyal to Hitler specifically or simply refused to act against the regime. In any such event as the death of Hitler it is not the individual soldier usually who affects the outcome of events, but the officers who they followed. Then add in the Gestapo and SS, two organisations who would bitterly oppose the removal of the Nazi party from the control of Germany and were even more rife with Hitler/Nazi supporters than the rest of the country.
Taking July 1944 as your start point then shall we? The German armies were on the verge of being caught in the Falaise pocket within a week of such events, a crucial period during which chaos would be reigning back in Germany. Within a month they would be cut off almost completely and the Wermacht in the west would cease to exist as a coherent fighting machine. Even assuming as you might that this was largely avoided, the peace with the west would not have been automatic (more on this in a moment), fighting would have gone on for some time. Even then assuming the peace occurred how many troops stationed in the west could Germany really send east? Youre suggesting somehow that what, the germans could just mass transfer their forces to the eastern front, leaving the entire western front with just a skeletal force with the western allies still at their backs? Please The reality would simply be that they would still need to concentrate a serious force in the west, especially as I believe the allies would not have desired to fight the Russians. The effect of not having to fight in the west might have influenced to some small degree the war in the east, but it would almost certainly not have prevented Stalin from seizing his chance to control the whole of Germany.
The system of democracy you mention sorry but no. Germany had been ruled through strong leaders for some time, the more likely result and the (immediate consequences of the plot Von Stauffenberg lead) of the death of Hitler would have been a military junta being set up for the time being. A military divided between loyalties to duty and state, leader and morality. At the very minimum there would have been initial problems with setting up a democracy. Then add those directly opposed to it, the SS and Gestapo, these two would have just accepted the Nazi fall from power without a power struggle? I think not.
And I dont think the Germans did possess the power to beat the western allies in anything more than a temporary setback. This comes at a time when the western forces were about to be destroyed, their supplies were negligible to say the least, the transport rail system almost non existent and the allies getting stronger by the day, close to their supplies, superior in numbers and quantity of equipment.
Overall your analysis of the aims of the Western allies leaves much to be desired also. Churchill hated Hitler and Nazi Germany much more than he ever despised Russia. He may have recognised the need to use Germany after the war, but a Germany not under allied control was a Germany they could never trust. Germany had to be first de-nazified and brought to check for her actions, occupied and taught were it had gone wrong before the west could use her. The German armed forces were not properly rebuilt for some time after the war because of this lack of trust from all of the allies.
Your conclusion makes no sense frankly, why would the allies sign a peace deal with a Germany they had on the run that would leave Germany open for a Russian take-over? Why would Stalin halt when he could finish the job and take revenge for the German excesses in Russia? Why would the allies side with a nation that would still contain many high ranking Nazis in all walks of life and especially the military? Why would they accept such a nation being free to continue to exist when they had fought for 4-5 years to destroy it? How could the Germans suddenly become a democracy overnight? Why would the allies go against their every agreement between themselves and sign a separate peace deal simply because the Germans suddenly claimed they were now nice and democratic?
Would the new Germany willingly hand back the land it took under Hitler? Would the new Germany try the war criminals in its midst properly? How could the allies know the new Germany would not be a threat to them in future? Theyd already left one war to be spoilt by the peace treaty following it, I somehow doubt theyd make the same mistake twice. All these questions and more come to mind when reading your conclusion. The western allies would be trading the certainty of controlling at least part of the post war Germany which would be democratic and under their wing for the possibility of either a Germany out of their control and not properly cleared of Nazi influence at best or a Germany owned by Russia at worst.
Finally, the Russian threat that you make so much of was lessened anyway. Both Churchill/Atlee and Roosevelt/Trueman knew full well that Russia will have been cautious about any hot war in the aftermath of seeing the atomic bomb results. They could be confident for the time being that Germany would not be needed until it was truly democratic and Nazi ideology had been cleared from the country for good. This is shown in the delays in rebuilding the German armed forces and the careful control of post war western Germany for some years.
The immediate aftermath of the war proves that the allies had no need for Germany to become democratic under their own design. The Western allies had much more to gain from ensuring that Germany did co-operate against Russia through their occupying influence rather than hoping she would if left to her own devices. They had more to gain by ensuring war criminals were brought to trial than hoping that Germany would and further hoping these criminals would not find a place in post war governments of Germany. Germany without being occupied and cleansed of Nazi influence properly would be a threat if only in terms of its uncertain future, it would be by no means guaranteed that Germany would co-operate in alliances with her former enemies either. Only through occupation could this be enforced.
Taking July 1944 as your start point then shall we? The German armies were on the verge of being caught in the Falaise pocket within a week of such events, a crucial period during which chaos would be reigning back in Germany. Within a month they would be cut off almost completely and the Wermacht in the west would cease to exist as a coherent fighting machine. Even assuming as you might that this was largely avoided, the peace with the west would not have been automatic (more on this in a moment), fighting would have gone on for some time. Even then assuming the peace occurred how many troops stationed in the west could Germany really send east? Youre suggesting somehow that what, the germans could just mass transfer their forces to the eastern front, leaving the entire western front with just a skeletal force with the western allies still at their backs? Please The reality would simply be that they would still need to concentrate a serious force in the west, especially as I believe the allies would not have desired to fight the Russians. The effect of not having to fight in the west might have influenced to some small degree the war in the east, but it would almost certainly not have prevented Stalin from seizing his chance to control the whole of Germany.
The system of democracy you mention sorry but no. Germany had been ruled through strong leaders for some time, the more likely result and the (immediate consequences of the plot Von Stauffenberg lead) of the death of Hitler would have been a military junta being set up for the time being. A military divided between loyalties to duty and state, leader and morality. At the very minimum there would have been initial problems with setting up a democracy. Then add those directly opposed to it, the SS and Gestapo, these two would have just accepted the Nazi fall from power without a power struggle? I think not.
And I dont think the Germans did possess the power to beat the western allies in anything more than a temporary setback. This comes at a time when the western forces were about to be destroyed, their supplies were negligible to say the least, the transport rail system almost non existent and the allies getting stronger by the day, close to their supplies, superior in numbers and quantity of equipment.
Overall your analysis of the aims of the Western allies leaves much to be desired also. Churchill hated Hitler and Nazi Germany much more than he ever despised Russia. He may have recognised the need to use Germany after the war, but a Germany not under allied control was a Germany they could never trust. Germany had to be first de-nazified and brought to check for her actions, occupied and taught were it had gone wrong before the west could use her. The German armed forces were not properly rebuilt for some time after the war because of this lack of trust from all of the allies.
Your conclusion makes no sense frankly, why would the allies sign a peace deal with a Germany they had on the run that would leave Germany open for a Russian take-over? Why would Stalin halt when he could finish the job and take revenge for the German excesses in Russia? Why would the allies side with a nation that would still contain many high ranking Nazis in all walks of life and especially the military? Why would they accept such a nation being free to continue to exist when they had fought for 4-5 years to destroy it? How could the Germans suddenly become a democracy overnight? Why would the allies go against their every agreement between themselves and sign a separate peace deal simply because the Germans suddenly claimed they were now nice and democratic?
Would the new Germany willingly hand back the land it took under Hitler? Would the new Germany try the war criminals in its midst properly? How could the allies know the new Germany would not be a threat to them in future? Theyd already left one war to be spoilt by the peace treaty following it, I somehow doubt theyd make the same mistake twice. All these questions and more come to mind when reading your conclusion. The western allies would be trading the certainty of controlling at least part of the post war Germany which would be democratic and under their wing for the possibility of either a Germany out of their control and not properly cleared of Nazi influence at best or a Germany owned by Russia at worst.
Finally, the Russian threat that you make so much of was lessened anyway. Both Churchill/Atlee and Roosevelt/Trueman knew full well that Russia will have been cautious about any hot war in the aftermath of seeing the atomic bomb results. They could be confident for the time being that Germany would not be needed until it was truly democratic and Nazi ideology had been cleared from the country for good. This is shown in the delays in rebuilding the German armed forces and the careful control of post war western Germany for some years.
The immediate aftermath of the war proves that the allies had no need for Germany to become democratic under their own design. The Western allies had much more to gain from ensuring that Germany did co-operate against Russia through their occupying influence rather than hoping she would if left to her own devices. They had more to gain by ensuring war criminals were brought to trial than hoping that Germany would and further hoping these criminals would not find a place in post war governments of Germany. Germany without being occupied and cleansed of Nazi influence properly would be a threat if only in terms of its uncertain future, it would be by no means guaranteed that Germany would co-operate in alliances with her former enemies either. Only through occupation could this be enforced.
Case
The horror, the horror
Good post Hudson.
...which was the state the Army in the East was in at the time of the assasination attempt. During operation Bagration, the Soviets destroyed an entire German Army Group in a matter of days, before going on to isolate Army Group North and leave AG South with a totally indefensible front. If the Soviet's logistics were up to it, they could have taken Berlin in late 1944 - the Germans really had nothing to stop them. As it was, while they paused on the Vistula, their armies in the south routed the Germans out of the Balkans.
In the west, the Allies were on the point of breaking out of Normandy and Operation Dragoon was proceeding well. Thanks to ULTRA they had a pretty good idea of the true state of the German war machine.
By August the Western Allies high command was, quite literally, expecting the war to be over by Christmas.
In short, by July 20 1944, both the Western Allies and the Soviets were certain that they were going to win the war. As such, there was no desire to cut any kind of deal with Germany. If the coup had suceeded, the Allies would have demanded unconditional surrender. If the coup leaders had refused this for any reason (including asking for time to hold elections), the war would have continued.
...which was the state the Army in the East was in at the time of the assasination attempt. During operation Bagration, the Soviets destroyed an entire German Army Group in a matter of days, before going on to isolate Army Group North and leave AG South with a totally indefensible front. If the Soviet's logistics were up to it, they could have taken Berlin in late 1944 - the Germans really had nothing to stop them. As it was, while they paused on the Vistula, their armies in the south routed the Germans out of the Balkans.
In the west, the Allies were on the point of breaking out of Normandy and Operation Dragoon was proceeding well. Thanks to ULTRA they had a pretty good idea of the true state of the German war machine.
By August the Western Allies high command was, quite literally, expecting the war to be over by Christmas.
In short, by July 20 1944, both the Western Allies and the Soviets were certain that they were going to win the war. As such, there was no desire to cut any kind of deal with Germany. If the coup had suceeded, the Allies would have demanded unconditional surrender. If the coup leaders had refused this for any reason (including asking for time to hold elections), the war would have continued.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Thank you case, my knowledge of the eastern front is sketchy so I was unsure of the situation in the east and therefore reluctant to include it in any conclusion 
Knowing that then I conclude as do you that the Western allies had virtually no reason to even consider dealing with whomever had replaced Hitler.
Knowing that then I conclude as do you that the Western allies had virtually no reason to even consider dealing with whomever had replaced Hitler.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
after kursk and stalingrad, the germans were essentially screwed.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
I admit Hitler was in total power in 1944. But Stauffenberg and his comrades had the idea of a free democratic Germany and not a Germany ruled by a military junta. They would have to do much and it was critical. Falaise and the eastern front had to be avoided with a strategical retreat. Although in retreat it was already possible to do. The best German commanders were driven off by Hitler. Guderian, Rommel, and so on. If they were back in command they would have been much more dangerous. The Soviets took Berlin with the last breath. Without a longer period of securing and resupplying they weren´t able to holt it against a German counter strike. Germany had at least 3 complete armies in reserve. They were destroyed in the Ardennes and in Budapest. If at the font they would have stopped the Russians before the German border.
The Luftwaffe had just enough planes in reseve to follow General Galland´s plan of attacking one of the 1000 bomber attacks and shooting down over 20 %. Such a victory would have a big morale influence by the allied pilots. Adding German technology like SAMs or Jet fighters, this would have been another advantage. I admit USA would have been able to rebuild these planes within a few months but the morale would have been very low. And the loss of battle proved air crews too. Thus and a good resistance in France would have lead the allies to make a peace with both sides could live. But I know that´s pure speculation and it would be very difficult to do but not impossible.
A final note: Germany had democratic traditions for nearly a century. They were democratic and Hitler was only a kind of accident because of some reasons. Nazis were a minority and most Germans would have voted against Hitler in 1944 as they did in 1933. But a revolution he had not to fear. The population had to survive the allied bombing runs.
How a peace would have been looked like, stationing allied troops and a certain reducing of sovereignity, I don´t know. But avoiding the Soviets and territorial integrity of Germany was possible.
Adler
The Luftwaffe had just enough planes in reseve to follow General Galland´s plan of attacking one of the 1000 bomber attacks and shooting down over 20 %. Such a victory would have a big morale influence by the allied pilots. Adding German technology like SAMs or Jet fighters, this would have been another advantage. I admit USA would have been able to rebuild these planes within a few months but the morale would have been very low. And the loss of battle proved air crews too. Thus and a good resistance in France would have lead the allies to make a peace with both sides could live. But I know that´s pure speculation and it would be very difficult to do but not impossible.
A final note: Germany had democratic traditions for nearly a century. They were democratic and Hitler was only a kind of accident because of some reasons. Nazis were a minority and most Germans would have voted against Hitler in 1944 as they did in 1933. But a revolution he had not to fear. The population had to survive the allied bombing runs.
How a peace would have been looked like, stationing allied troops and a certain reducing of sovereignity, I don´t know. But avoiding the Soviets and territorial integrity of Germany was possible.
Adler
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Well clearly you don't follow the same thought process as I do so we are not going to agree on this to say the least. It assumes for one that the army could pull off the retreats whilst having almost no command stucture to co-ordinate it's various groups due to Hitler's death. It assumes that the conspirators could suceed in the ensuing power struggle for a second. Even assuming it could do both of these it assumes the allies would be niaeve enough to believe that Germany could be trusted to carry out the change to democracy and remove the criminals from it's government, remove hitler fans from the country's running and then adopt a friendly foreign policy.
An example would be that Stauffenberg and co. knew full well that the SS in and around Berlin under Himmler's control could create havoc. In return for not doing this their plan was basically to offer him the opportunity to just simply escape rather than begin a civil war!
That doesn't strike me as being too close to the allied needs to bring such men to justice if the Germans are letting them flee (presumably to neutral territory). This was the generally accpepted norm for the plan, Himmler and Goering were considered a danger, to prevent this the plan was to offer them protection and/or allowing them the freedom to leave Germany. This is not something that the allies would have been happy about at all. Amnesty for the criminals was not something Russia for one was likely to accept unquestioned and certainly not to avoid a civil war against a government she would dislike anyway due to her millitary and then possibly democratic nature.
Not really, tanks and planes are useless without this thing called fuel. Russia was on the verge of seizing the Romanian oil fields within a month, cutting the Panzers off from the one thing that made them even more dangerous than the commander of the army. Apart from that the conspirators would be presumed to retreat into Germany out of the occupied lands, causing a major loss of available fuel anyway. Even if they didn't, their ability to continue the war without the vital resources of the Balkans was extremely little. Most german attempts to counter attack from this point on failed through lack of supplies, not lack of troops, I'd see no reason why this would change just because Guderein and co. were now in charge.
Uhmmm no, the USA and Britain had suffered losses like that before over the Sweinfurt raid for example and it did not seem to stop the allies one bit to be frank. German SAM's were primitive and of little real use also, do not mistake propaganda for reality. The jet planes you mention were of little use also, apart from lack of fuel for these expensive monstrosities they were mostly of little overall vast use anyway. The allies soon found counter measures to engage such planes, an example being shooting them up when they came out of a dive or in for landing and jumping them. I doubt any of these would have made a huge difference.
Not impossible, just illogical. The allies had no reason to deal with a Germany they could not trust and the list of things the conspirators would have to do quickly was simply too much to be able for them to do all that was needed to appease the Western Allies.
Germany was also used to being lead by a strong leader in either the Kaiser or Hitler. The conspirators planned for 2/3 of the immediate government to be army officers! This does not strike me as democratic enough for the allies who had no reason to believe the Germans would change anyway given the heavy influence on German life the Nazi's had.
I disagree. Hitler and co. had been in power over 11 years by then and had used that time to brainwash or persuade a good many in all walks of life to their thought process. I think you underestimate just how many Germans did support Hitler or the Nazi regime frankly. The nazi's were very good at propaganda and using such things as the church to persuade the gullible and those who did not question authority.
Hmmm It's confidently expected that if the Germans had still maintained enough supplies for said armies (which I highly doubt, they never managed fuel for offensives like the Bulge when it mattered, or Falaise when it truly mattered) then the Russians would simply wait some time to prepare their own offensive properly. Zukhov and co. were not stupid, they would not attack under such conditions unless they had a reasonable chance of sucess.
That's assuming anyway that there would be supplies for all 3 armies, which there wasn't, so the point is a moot one. Preparation is a debateable point as well. When the Germans began the Normandy campaign the entire western forces had fuel and food enough for barely a few weeks, when the Bulge came along they lost more heavy tanks due to lack of fuel than anything else! No ammount of preparation for an attack can overcome a basic lack of fuel and other supplies overall.
An example would be that Stauffenberg and co. knew full well that the SS in and around Berlin under Himmler's control could create havoc. In return for not doing this their plan was basically to offer him the opportunity to just simply escape rather than begin a civil war!
That doesn't strike me as being too close to the allied needs to bring such men to justice if the Germans are letting them flee (presumably to neutral territory). This was the generally accpepted norm for the plan, Himmler and Goering were considered a danger, to prevent this the plan was to offer them protection and/or allowing them the freedom to leave Germany. This is not something that the allies would have been happy about at all. Amnesty for the criminals was not something Russia for one was likely to accept unquestioned and certainly not to avoid a civil war against a government she would dislike anyway due to her millitary and then possibly democratic nature.Not really, tanks and planes are useless without this thing called fuel. Russia was on the verge of seizing the Romanian oil fields within a month, cutting the Panzers off from the one thing that made them even more dangerous than the commander of the army. Apart from that the conspirators would be presumed to retreat into Germany out of the occupied lands, causing a major loss of available fuel anyway. Even if they didn't, their ability to continue the war without the vital resources of the Balkans was extremely little. Most german attempts to counter attack from this point on failed through lack of supplies, not lack of troops, I'd see no reason why this would change just because Guderein and co. were now in charge.
Uhmmm no, the USA and Britain had suffered losses like that before over the Sweinfurt raid for example and it did not seem to stop the allies one bit to be frank. German SAM's were primitive and of little real use also, do not mistake propaganda for reality. The jet planes you mention were of little use also, apart from lack of fuel for these expensive monstrosities they were mostly of little overall vast use anyway. The allies soon found counter measures to engage such planes, an example being shooting them up when they came out of a dive or in for landing and jumping them. I doubt any of these would have made a huge difference.
Not impossible, just illogical. The allies had no reason to deal with a Germany they could not trust and the list of things the conspirators would have to do quickly was simply too much to be able for them to do all that was needed to appease the Western Allies.
Germany was also used to being lead by a strong leader in either the Kaiser or Hitler. The conspirators planned for 2/3 of the immediate government to be army officers! This does not strike me as democratic enough for the allies who had no reason to believe the Germans would change anyway given the heavy influence on German life the Nazi's had.
I disagree. Hitler and co. had been in power over 11 years by then and had used that time to brainwash or persuade a good many in all walks of life to their thought process. I think you underestimate just how many Germans did support Hitler or the Nazi regime frankly. The nazi's were very good at propaganda and using such things as the church to persuade the gullible and those who did not question authority.
Hmmm
It's confidently expected that if the Germans had still maintained enough supplies for said armies (which I highly doubt, they never managed fuel for offensives like the Bulge when it mattered, or Falaise when it truly mattered) then the Russians would simply wait some time to prepare their own offensive properly. Zukhov and co. were not stupid, they would not attack under such conditions unless they had a reasonable chance of sucess.That's assuming anyway that there would be supplies for all 3 armies, which there wasn't, so the point is a moot one. Preparation is a debateable point as well. When the Germans began the Normandy campaign the entire western forces had fuel and food enough for barely a few weeks, when the Bulge came along they lost more heavy tanks due to lack of fuel than anything else! No ammount of preparation for an attack can overcome a basic lack of fuel and other supplies overall.
Case
The horror, the horror
At the time of the assasination attempt, Guderian was doing good work for an evil cause as inspector-general of Panzers, and Rommel was on leave due to injuries sustained when his car was strafed in Normandy.
Once again, you seem to assume that the Soviets plans were on some kind of fixed course. The all-out assault on Berlin was launched because it was the best strategy given the relative forces in the region. If the Germans had somehow had more forces a more cautious strategy would have been used. Whatever their failings at the tactical level, the Soviets were extreamly good at the strategic level. As they demonstrated during their Vistula-Oder offencive of early 1945, their armies were more then capable of encircling and reducing strongholds judged to be too strong or too economically valuable to directly assault.
Incidently, everytime the Germans did tried a counter-strike against the Soviets in 1945 they ended in failure. The Soviet forces were both too large and too competant for the Germans to hope to defeat by that stage of the war.
While the 1000 planes weren't ever assembeled, the Germans did historically have a few days in 1944 when well over 500 aircraft attacked the Americans. These efforts ended in miserable failure, with the American fighers slaughtering the Luftwaffe. By 1944 the US had both better fighters and vastly better figther pilots (US pilots spent something like 200 hours in training before being deployed. German pilots had something like 10 hours if they were lucky). The 1000 plane plan was never going to work.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Case and Privatehudson, you both have good arguments but some are not very accurate. Guderian was in the resistance! He became a member a few days before the assasination should be executed because of Rommel´s injuries. He had no command in this time, so he had no chance in defending Germany.
Russia made also strategic errors like Berlin!. Although they captured Berlin they moved THROUGH the last defending army although they could avoid them. Though they lost over 250000 men.
Also indeed German counterstrikes were not successfull because of the lack of nearly everything, but if there were forces, 1 army after Berlin was taken 3-4 before, they would have stopped and repelled the German forces.
German jet fighter shot down in 3 month or real fighting at least 1000 planes. This is only the figure the German pilots were credited with but many kills were not credited due to the Chaos. SAMs were also used, but not in that number. I say IF Hitler was assainated, these weapons would have been much more effective. This and Gallands plan would have been a giant defeat for the attacking USAAF. This would have stopped the bombing runs. In this time the US forces did not bomb the German refinaries where fuel was synthezized. There was a lack of fuel, but not critical, in 1944.
The SS was indeed a problem. Göring and Himmler also. But i´m not so familiar with the bomb plot so I don´t know how they wanted to solve that problem. But perhaps it wasn´t so big because Hitler never made a man to his successor. So both could have also fought each other. But that´s mere speculation.
And if having a Germany, okay I consider on some controle of the western allies, as a puffer to the Russians, a strong Germany, they would have made peace in 1944.
At least I think we are not possible to convince each other, so I think we stop the debate, unless there are no other arguments or you wish to continue.
Adler
Russia made also strategic errors like Berlin!. Although they captured Berlin they moved THROUGH the last defending army although they could avoid them. Though they lost over 250000 men.
Also indeed German counterstrikes were not successfull because of the lack of nearly everything, but if there were forces, 1 army after Berlin was taken 3-4 before, they would have stopped and repelled the German forces.
German jet fighter shot down in 3 month or real fighting at least 1000 planes. This is only the figure the German pilots were credited with but many kills were not credited due to the Chaos. SAMs were also used, but not in that number. I say IF Hitler was assainated, these weapons would have been much more effective. This and Gallands plan would have been a giant defeat for the attacking USAAF. This would have stopped the bombing runs. In this time the US forces did not bomb the German refinaries where fuel was synthezized. There was a lack of fuel, but not critical, in 1944.
The SS was indeed a problem. Göring and Himmler also. But i´m not so familiar with the bomb plot so I don´t know how they wanted to solve that problem. But perhaps it wasn´t so big because Hitler never made a man to his successor. So both could have also fought each other. But that´s mere speculation.
And if having a Germany, okay I consider on some controle of the western allies, as a puffer to the Russians, a strong Germany, they would have made peace in 1944.
At least I think we are not possible to convince each other, so I think we stop the debate, unless there are no other arguments or you wish to continue.
Adler
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
And yet he was made chief of staff of the Army right after the attempt and didn't seem to manage to defend Germany as effectively as it would seem. I've yet to see you point out my innacuracies though...
No-one's claiming they were perfect, what they are claiming is that IF Germany had concentrated more forces there, Russia would do likewise and bring her industrial output to bear until the situation permitted further advances. Russian generals would not just blindly advance into 3 German armies that they knew were still intact. Their performances in 1944 in destroying and isolating the various army groups showed their ability at strategic level, this would indicate that they would avoid prohibitive casualties in such an event. They did what they did around Berlin because they knew without a doubt that Germany could not counter attack and could afford to, as has been repeatedly stated, had this been different then you can expect Russian strategy to have been different also. It was not set in stone.
And this also fails to explain how to supply 3-4 such armies in the field when supplying even one of them at a time was a nightmare for the Germans.
And I say otherwise. The Komet plane was more lethal to it's pilots half the time than to it's enemies due to the rocket system of propulsion being unstable and the glider based landing, and all that for only a minute or so over the enemy planes. I suggest you look here for some info on the Komet, which gives a more accurate figure for it's contribution to allied bomber losses of 12 confirmed kills.
The 262 was of little real effect and unreliable. Of the 300 or so 262's that ever saw action it's claimed by the Americans that they shot down over 100, hardly a wonder weapon. Also Hitler had already made the design a fighter/bomber in the 1943 designs and it was in the process of changing their role to fighter that many of them were destroyed on the ground in factories rather than having any effect. Given the 262's problems it was more the Aces that they were given to that caused the losses they inflicted than the brilliance of the plane.
As I said, contary to your trust in such weapons, the allies had found ways around such planes with their normal fighters, AND were starting to produce their own jet fighters in the Meteor. I hardly think either of these would have been consistently capable of destroying the USAAF and RAF. I'd certainly like to know for one thing where this 1000 figure came from though.
One other thing, information on these SAM's would be handy. So far I know of rockets like the V1/V2 and the rockets the planes carried, but other than that the only "real" weapon that matches a SAM ideal is the Fliegerfaust, (a kind of hand held rocket launcher to be fired at planes) but since this was solely for use against low flying enemies it doesn't strike me as going to be immensely effective against bombers somehow. Some other reliable info would be good.
And I beg to differ. Your figure of 20% was suffered in the Sweinfurt raids, 3 of them to be exact, so since the first of these occurred in 1943 I don't think heavy losses especially worried the USAAF somehow. Also if you're claiming 1000 losses in 3 months, were is your justification for also claiming high losses worried the USAAF? Ally all the above to the almost total lack of fuel in any such retreat and you still think such a thing is going to happen?
Oh dear, define critical for me please?
German western forces began the Normandy campaign with little more than 3 weeks of supplies overall and not a great deal of fuel for their armoured formations. German armour all over the Western front was often abbandonned through lack of fuel or ammunition. Besides that it would be expected that because your plan would be less effective (due to the above logic and figures on the planes) the allies would simply switch to bombing German refineries with equal effect to those they had bombed before.As I stated, the basic plan was that to avoid Himmler using his SS to storm berlin and start a civil war, the plan was to offer him amnesty. Goering they considered less of a threat as most people hated him anyway and his power base was small, but they were prepared to do something similar to him. Doenitz they didn't strictly worry about, the navy was too weak to be a powerful force in a civil war, but they did slightly fear a triumverate of those 3 taking power in the event of Hitler's death, hence the offers of amnesty, to avoid a civil war. Given Himmler's strong position though (the Waffen SS alone numbered something like 1/4 of all mechanised and armoured formations in the entire German army at the time) it's anyone's guess as to if he'd accept.
The biggest problem is you fail to explain why the allies would prefer a Germany they had no control over and could not trust to do what they wanted, plus risk loosing it altogether to Russia to a Germany they could at least partly control and use as a definite ally and buffer zone. I see no logical reason why the allies would trade uncertainty and lack of trust for what happened.
Case
The horror, the horror
Actually, Hitler's decision to convert the 262's didn't even have that much effect. By the time the aircraft were available in any numbers, this order had been relaxed, and most of them had been produced as fighters. The 262s design problems were what held up the aircrafts introduction, not any effect of Hitler's order.
Anyway, the 262 was a turkey. Like many of the late-war German designs, it featured high perfomance on paper, but in the real world it wasn't of much use. When they worked well, the 262 was an excelent aircraft, with excelent speed, fairly good handling characteristics and an excelent armament. However, the aircraft was fatally flawed in that it's engines had an extreamly short lifespan and that the aircraft was difficult to service and generally keep operational. As such, even if the German economy wasn't collapsing there would have been no way that the Luftwaffe could have fielded more then a handful of aircraft on any given day.
The RAF lost something like that many bombers during the disarsterous 'Battle of Berlin' during the winter of 1943-44. The RAF didn't collapse, and was able to make good these losses very quickly. With it's greater resources, the USAAF would have had an even easier time making good these losses.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
The Me 163 Komet was not mentioned by me first. Indeed it was not a good fighter. The Me 262 was much better. Indeed it had problems, but Hudson, it was much better than anything the allies had, including Meteor and P 80. The speed was superb there was no real chance for allied fighters to catch a jet plane in the air- unless the engines of the jet plane are damaged. Indeed these engines were bad. But most kills of German Me262 fighters by allied planes was the landing of these planes. In that phase the planes were in a big danger. And yes there were only a few Me 262 in duty. IIRC only 300 planes flew combat missions. Due to the lack of fuel. Nevertheless they shot down at least 1500 planes (most propably, exact figures are not known)! This plane introduced 2/3 a year earlier would have increased the losses of allied planes dramatically.
The Germans used indeed SAMs. But only 2 or 3 types saw action: These misslies were Schmetterling (butterfly) and Wasserfall (water fall) and most probably Rheintochter (Rhine daughter). They were not used often but over 50 kills were confirmed by these few missiles
You say I had to say why the allies should do trust a Germany out of their controle even democratically. So the reason is Russia. What would have been better for Europe: a democratical Germany under a certain but not complete controle or Russian forces in middle Europe? The alliance with Stalin was doomed from the beginning to the Death of Hitler. And indeed the alliance broke. Why did the US drop the nuke on Japan? Japan wanted to surrend. The main reason and for me the only: Showing the Russians the might of the western allies. So Hitler´s death would have changed history dramaticvally in 1944.
Adler
The Germans used indeed SAMs. But only 2 or 3 types saw action: These misslies were Schmetterling (butterfly) and Wasserfall (water fall) and most probably Rheintochter (Rhine daughter). They were not used often but over 50 kills were confirmed by these few missiles
You say I had to say why the allies should do trust a Germany out of their controle even democratically. So the reason is Russia. What would have been better for Europe: a democratical Germany under a certain but not complete controle or Russian forces in middle Europe? The alliance with Stalin was doomed from the beginning to the Death of Hitler. And indeed the alliance broke. Why did the US drop the nuke on Japan? Japan wanted to surrend. The main reason and for me the only: Showing the Russians the might of the western allies. So Hitler´s death would have changed history dramaticvally in 1944.
Adler
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
The 262 was not a wonder weapon. You seem to believe it capable of turning on it's head the war in the air almost alone and yet you admit lack of fuel caused problems for it. How then could the germans do better if they had more of them? The Germans DID produce more of them, the problem was more that they couldn't even use most of them at any one time due to a lack of fuel and/or trained pilots for them. That and the fact that however they did it, the allies did find ways to down these planes, therefore it seems unlikely that the 262 could have any great affect on the war. And as has been correctly stated (I was mistaken before) the main issue was with production problems, that is not something that would have changed because Hitler was no longer in charge. Oh and I'd like to see where this "1500" figure comes from as well, I've not seen a site claim more than 1/8 of this, and most more like a tenth
Correct on the SAM's, but more clarification is needed, specifically I'll start with "Wasserfall". Check here You'll note I presume that to be even very effective it needed mass numbers of missiles, specifically 5000 per month. Predicted production was 900 and that not until 1946. Whilst it's remotely possible that under a new regime this could be speeded up slightly I somehow doubt production could be much higher than that given the fuel needs and so on. Also it's maximum ceiling was just over half that of a B17, so it's effect would possibly have been quite neglible.
The other two I'm still checking info on (mainly books at this time since I can't find too much online) so I won't comment on them, but it hardly looks promising. From what they say on Wasserfall, the projects were mostly cancelled because they would not produce effects until it was too late (usually after what we now know as the war's end), therefore resources were simply transferred.
The whole a-bomb argument is a flawed one. Japan was NOT surrendering properly or even discussing the matter in any seriousness until after the first bomb. She was busy until then preparing and planning for the defense of Japan drawing up ideas and so on. No document seems to have ever come out of Japan to prove that her cabinet would have accepted terms offered by the allies (ie unconditional) before the bomb. Whilst I don't doubt part of allied reasoning was to show the Russians their power, you cannot with all seriousness claim it was the sole reason. All the faulty reasoning going can't escape the simple fact that Japan did not do what was necessary before the bomb, no-one knew if she ever would, and of the options available to the allies, the bomb ironically caused the minimum of casualties.
You ask what would have been better for Europe. I say a Germany trusted through occupation and properly removed of Nazi influence rather than one independant and still retaining some of the influence of it's former government. Would the new government have rejected Von Braun for example? (on whom many a weapon design relied) Or would they have arrested him thanks to his involvement in the Penemunde camp?* Would the new government have rounded up the SS and Gestapo properly and saw to it that justice was done? The conspirators plans say otherwise. I would say ensuring that Germany was free of such influence for good and definately aligned to the west in part is far better than some vauge possibility that she could retain her independance from Russia and then assume she would co-operate on other matters.
*Yes I am aware the US then adopted him after the war, I'm just wondering if you really believe that the democratic Germany could be so charitable in rounding up those involved in the regimes crimes, or whether they would be forced through military/political need to use them.
Correct on the SAM's, but more clarification is needed, specifically I'll start with "Wasserfall". Check here You'll note I presume that to be even very effective it needed mass numbers of missiles, specifically 5000 per month. Predicted production was 900 and that not until 1946. Whilst it's remotely possible that under a new regime this could be speeded up slightly I somehow doubt production could be much higher than that given the fuel needs and so on. Also it's maximum ceiling was just over half that of a B17, so it's effect would possibly have been quite neglible.
The other two I'm still checking info on (mainly books at this time since I can't find too much online) so I won't comment on them, but it hardly looks promising. From what they say on Wasserfall, the projects were mostly cancelled because they would not produce effects until it was too late (usually after what we now know as the war's end), therefore resources were simply transferred.
The whole a-bomb argument is a flawed one. Japan was NOT surrendering properly or even discussing the matter in any seriousness until after the first bomb. She was busy until then preparing and planning for the defense of Japan drawing up ideas and so on. No document seems to have ever come out of Japan to prove that her cabinet would have accepted terms offered by the allies (ie unconditional) before the bomb. Whilst I don't doubt part of allied reasoning was to show the Russians their power, you cannot with all seriousness claim it was the sole reason.
All the faulty reasoning going can't escape the simple fact that Japan did not do what was necessary before the bomb, no-one knew if she ever would, and of the options available to the allies, the bomb ironically caused the minimum of casualties.You ask what would have been better for Europe. I say a Germany trusted through occupation and properly removed of Nazi influence rather than one independant and still retaining some of the influence of it's former government. Would the new government have rejected Von Braun for example? (on whom many a weapon design relied) Or would they have arrested him thanks to his involvement in the Penemunde camp?* Would the new government have rounded up the SS and Gestapo properly and saw to it that justice was done? The conspirators plans say otherwise. I would say ensuring that Germany was free of such influence for good and definately aligned to the west in part is far better than some vauge possibility that she could retain her independance from Russia and then assume she would co-operate on other matters.
*Yes I am aware the US then adopted him after the war, I'm just wondering if you really believe that the democratic Germany could be so charitable in rounding up those involved in the regimes crimes, or whether they would be forced through military/political need to use them.
I voted other namely:
General Stanislaw Maczek (1892-1994!), legendary commander of the Polish 1st Armored Division which fought as part of the Canadian 2nd Corps in Normandy, playing a crucial role in the Battle of Falaise, then pushed through Northern France, Belgium, The Netherlands and finally into Germany liberating hundreds of towns and villages along the way and accepting the surrender of the German Navy in Wilhelmshaven on the final day of the war. He is the Polish Patton or Guderian and should have his place in the Armor Hall of Fame. He was a very humane person as well, not wanting to cause unnecessary suffering or cultural destruction: for example he would give orders to his men not to use artillery when trying to take an enemy-held town or city. The Dutch city of Breda was captured in this way in october 1944 by Maczek's division only with Infantry and some Tanks. The city was liberated with hardly a house damaged. The people in Breda are still extremely gratefull to him for this fact. He is buried at the Polish Military Cemetery in Breda, amongst his fallen soldiers.
More information can be found at http://www.junobeach.org/e/3/can-pep-pol-maczek-e.htm
The story of him AFTER the war is even more impressive (and tragic). He couldn't return to communist Poland, in fear of his life, like tens of thousands other Polish military that stayed in the West after WW2. He chose Scotland to live and raise his family, having to do crappy jobs, even working as a barman in one of his subordinates hotels!, his Polish nationality revoked by the communist regimes in the fifties. He kept a low profile, not mingling in the Polish government-in-exile in London, except in 1981 when he made a plea to the Polish military not to shoot at striking workers in Poland during the Solidarity period. He was fortunate to live to see the end of communism in his beloved Poland, and he was duly returned his Polish nationality by the first democratic President of Poland (he had been offered it back in the seventies by the communists, but he had refused). On the end of communism in Poland, at the age of 97, he wrote a message to all his division veterans: What a joy that we have lived to see happen what we fought for so much: the return of a democratic, free Poland.
General Stanislaw Maczek (1892-1994!), legendary commander of the Polish 1st Armored Division which fought as part of the Canadian 2nd Corps in Normandy, playing a crucial role in the Battle of Falaise, then pushed through Northern France, Belgium, The Netherlands and finally into Germany liberating hundreds of towns and villages along the way and accepting the surrender of the German Navy in Wilhelmshaven on the final day of the war. He is the Polish Patton or Guderian and should have his place in the Armor Hall of Fame. He was a very humane person as well, not wanting to cause unnecessary suffering or cultural destruction: for example he would give orders to his men not to use artillery when trying to take an enemy-held town or city. The Dutch city of Breda was captured in this way in october 1944 by Maczek's division only with Infantry and some Tanks. The city was liberated with hardly a house damaged. The people in Breda are still extremely gratefull to him for this fact. He is buried at the Polish Military Cemetery in Breda, amongst his fallen soldiers.
More information can be found at http://www.junobeach.org/e/3/can-pep-pol-maczek-e.htm
The story of him AFTER the war is even more impressive (and tragic). He couldn't return to communist Poland, in fear of his life, like tens of thousands other Polish military that stayed in the West after WW2. He chose Scotland to live and raise his family, having to do crappy jobs, even working as a barman in one of his subordinates hotels!, his Polish nationality revoked by the communist regimes in the fifties. He kept a low profile, not mingling in the Polish government-in-exile in London, except in 1981 when he made a plea to the Polish military not to shoot at striking workers in Poland during the Solidarity period. He was fortunate to live to see the end of communism in his beloved Poland, and he was duly returned his Polish nationality by the first democratic President of Poland (he had been offered it back in the seventies by the communists, but he had refused). On the end of communism in Poland, at the age of 97, he wrote a message to all his division veterans: What a joy that we have lived to see happen what we fought for so much: the return of a democratic, free Poland.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
I do not believe that all Nazis would have been punished for their crimes. The most evil ones yes, but the rest? I do believe it would have been handled like in reality it was: Who was not a Nazi to a certain degree was free, otherwise punished. And you wasn´t able to do much without the guys in the offices of the administration who were mainly Nazis, but sometimes forced, sometimes only because having no problems with their bosses. Thsi was a pity but the necessarity of the situation. Adenauer was asked why the generals of the Wehrmacht would be the generals of the new Bundeswehr. He answered the allies wouldn´t accept 18 years old generals. And some guys like von Braun wouldn´t be rejected. And if the US helped this guys too, we can only argue on a morale level, where you are absolutely right, but this level is unfortuantel not realistic.
To the Me262: There were built 1433 planes up to April 1945. 43 pilots were credited with aerial victories and 22 of them were aces in allied classements. Heinz Bär had 16 victories in the jet plane additional to 206 in the Me 109 as the best pilot. Saying there were 150 to 200 CONFIRMED kills. I admit 1500 planes might be too high but due to the chaos at the end of the war a figure of 1000 planes is realistic. The German confirmation of areial victories was very slowly and lasted sometimes over a year for one kill! So these official figures are much under the real figure at least in these times. The SAMs could have also been used earlier and only in one or two attacks but having only once ot twice beaten these bombing runs the US would have too high losses to continue the war on such a way. General Spaatz was very worried about a few Me 262 of the Kommando Nowotny. He said if the Germans would increase using this weapon he would have to stop all offensive actions against Germany! This was in August 1944! So the situation would have been not a completely other, Germany would have lost the war, but the losses would have been so high to accept a peace.
In my eyes the dropping of the nukes on Japan was a war crime. I know there would be a big discussion whether it was or not which I want to avoid, because I know about stron mainly US supporters of the dropping, so take this as my personal statement to an off topic discussion. If you´re intersted we could make another discussion of this topic but not here. At least I would say if the bombs had to be dropped a small island would have been the best. It should have been inhabited or only very few population. This would have been the same effect, but that´s too much for this topic. Sorry.
I see we can´t persuade each other so we should stop now. I say if a Germany which was democratical and under a certain not complete controle the allies would rather made peace with it than accepting Russian troops at the Elbe river. Many US generals, IIRC also Ike, were not very keen about the Russians, so these arguments are not unlogic or unrealistic. But if there are no other arguments we should stop the discussion now. But if you have other arguments I am ready to do my best to counter them.
Adler
To the Me262: There were built 1433 planes up to April 1945. 43 pilots were credited with aerial victories and 22 of them were aces in allied classements. Heinz Bär had 16 victories in the jet plane additional to 206 in the Me 109 as the best pilot. Saying there were 150 to 200 CONFIRMED kills. I admit 1500 planes might be too high but due to the chaos at the end of the war a figure of 1000 planes is realistic. The German confirmation of areial victories was very slowly and lasted sometimes over a year for one kill! So these official figures are much under the real figure at least in these times. The SAMs could have also been used earlier and only in one or two attacks but having only once ot twice beaten these bombing runs the US would have too high losses to continue the war on such a way. General Spaatz was very worried about a few Me 262 of the Kommando Nowotny. He said if the Germans would increase using this weapon he would have to stop all offensive actions against Germany! This was in August 1944! So the situation would have been not a completely other, Germany would have lost the war, but the losses would have been so high to accept a peace.
In my eyes the dropping of the nukes on Japan was a war crime. I know there would be a big discussion whether it was or not which I want to avoid, because I know about stron mainly US supporters of the dropping, so take this as my personal statement to an off topic discussion. If you´re intersted we could make another discussion of this topic but not here. At least I would say if the bombs had to be dropped a small island would have been the best. It should have been inhabited or only very few population. This would have been the same effect, but that´s too much for this topic. Sorry.
I see we can´t persuade each other so we should stop now. I say if a Germany which was democratical and under a certain not complete controle the allies would rather made peace with it than accepting Russian troops at the Elbe river. Many US generals, IIRC also Ike, were not very keen about the Russians, so these arguments are not unlogic or unrealistic. But if there are no other arguments we should stop the discussion now. But if you have other arguments I am ready to do my best to counter them.
Adler
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
the ME262 would have changed the war permanently had those planes been mass produced and given good pilots.
Case
The horror, the horror
The planes were mass produced (over 1000 built, which definetly counts as mass production for such an advanced aircraft) and were assigned the Luftwaffes best pilots. However, the combination of flaws in the 262s design and the lack of fuel and spare parts ment that the aircraft probably did as well as it was possible for them to do.
There's an excelent essay on the potential impact (or lack thereof) of the ME262 in the book 'The Hitler Options'. I recomend that you both read it.
marshal zhukov
good economist wannabe
Marshal Zhukov is the best general of the war, I believe that he never lost a battle to the germans. (somebody confirm this please)
Defense in depth was put into pratical use by him, he also defended Moscow, Leningrad, coodinated the counter-offensive in Stalingrad, defended Kursk, captured Berlin.
That is trully impressive.
Defense in depth was put into pratical use by him, he also defended Moscow, Leningrad, coodinated the counter-offensive in Stalingrad, defended Kursk, captured Berlin.
That is trully impressive.
Similar threads
