Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

What if hitler

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 144
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Jun 2005, 18:05
Pioneer
Post 06 Jan 2006, 21:19
Dude you study history right? Then you should know that it isnt as linear as your making it out to be, you shouldnt try and put limits on the methods of understanding a certian topic. I dont think anyone here is trying to change any facts. All we are doing is having an innocent discussion speculating what could of happened under certian circumstances, using our knowlage on the subject and try and logically deduct what could of possibly/and possibly not have happened as a result......no one here is trying to write history.
Image


mmm communism...delicious
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 06 Jan 2006, 21:23
Take it easy SpetsNaz.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2510
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2004, 20:50
Party Bureaucrat
Post 06 Jan 2006, 21:51
Yeah, I know what you are trying to do and I am sorry if I was rude or something. You know my professors are rather fascistic concerning methodes used in history. They kinda influenced me a lot (and that's good).
Image

Ya Basta!
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 06 Jan 2006, 23:12
Let's get back to the topic, shall we?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 06 Jan 2006, 23:22
Quote:
They triet to make peace with Britain, but Britain refused.


At what point in the war?
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 06 Jan 2006, 23:44
1940.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 07 Jan 2006, 02:41
ok, I thought they tried to make peace later in the war.

If Hitler died before the war, Operation Sealion may have been carried out during the Battle of Britain, which would almost certainly lead to an English defeat.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Jan 2006, 03:14
Operation Sealion could not be launched until AFTER the Battle of Britain.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 07 Jan 2006, 03:31
Quote:
Operation Sealion could not be launched until AFTER the Battle of Britain.

Yes, in fact this is why the Battle of Britain was fought in the first place. Do you (Red Rebel) think Hitler just wanted to shoot down British planes for the fun of it? He needed to knock out the RAF in order to have air superiority during the planned invasion of Britain in Operation Sealion. Without that air superiority, the invasion would have been too costly to be thinkable - he wanted to conserve his best troops for the invasion of the Soviet Union. He didn't want them at the bottom of the English Channel. This is why, when it became clear he had lost the Battle of Britain, Operation Sealion was shelved in favour of Operation Barbarossa. The British were undefeated, but contained. He felt he could ignore them for the time being.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Jan 2006, 04:05
Quote:
...Without that air superiority, the invasion would have been too costly to be thinkable.........when it became clear he had lost the Battle of Britain, Operation Sealion was shelved....


Succesful invasion would not have been possible without air superiority. Grand Admiral Raeder, Commander of Kriegsmarine was not a strong supporter of the Operation Sealion.

He argued strongly agains't Sealion unless air superiority would be gained due to a lacking in regional German naval superiority in addition to the harassment that Royal Air Force and Royal Navy would cause to any German invasion force.

Quote:
He felt he could ignore them for the time being.


British were not "ignored. After the Battle of Britain ended in German defeat invasion of Britain was not an option. The other option was U-boat warfare. And German troops were fighting agaisn't British in Africa.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 07 Jan 2006, 14:52
Quote:
British were not "ignored. After the Battle of Britain ended in German defeat invasion of Britain was not an option. The other option was U-boat warfare. And German troops were fighting agaisn't British in Africa.

Perhaps I should rephrase that. By 'ignored', I merely meant that Hitler shelved plans to invade Britain for the foreseeable future. He was merely keeping Britain isolated and contained. I believe he was hoping that after Germany had defeating the Soviet Union, Britain would have no choice but to sue for peace even without an invasion. Of course, things didn't work out that way....
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 07 Jan 2006, 22:59
Quote:
He needed to knock out the RAF in order to have air superiority during the planned invasion of Britain in Operation Sealion. Without that air superiority, the invasion would have been too costly to be thinkable - he wanted to conserve his best troops for the invasion of the Soviet Union.


But once the Germans landed on the British mainland, Britain would not have stood a chance. Even if the Germans did not have air superiority, once they took the airfields, they would have air superiority.

Also the divisons stationed in Norway would be doing something rather than just freezing.

Causualties would have been high, but worth it in the long run.

Quote:
He was merely keeping Britain isolated and contained.


Which cost lots of resources.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Jan 2006, 23:15
Quote:
But once the Germans landed on the British mainland, Britain would not have stood a chance.


IF Germans landed succesfully British wouldn't have a chance, but invasion without air superiority was NOT an option.

Quote:
Which cost lots of resources.


U-boat warfare did not hinder Operation Barbarossa.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 07 Jan 2006, 23:23
Quote:
but invasion without air superiority was NOT an option.


It would have been costly, but still plausible.

Quote:
U-boat warfare did not hinder Operation Barbarossa.


Keeping a large military force in France and Norway cost money. Espically since it was not going into combat (with an exception o U-boats and planes).
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Jan 2006, 23:32
Quote:
It would have been costly, but still plausible


How?

Quote:
Keeping a large military force in France and Norway cost money. Espically since it was not going into combat


Please, explain how it costs money "especially because the troops are not seing much combat"?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 08 Jan 2006, 01:55
Quote:
How?


The RAF was more concentrated on fighters rather than bombers. The Luftwaffe would be dealing with the RAF while the German Army would land. Would there be higher casualties than if the RAF was defeated? Yes. But the Britain would have probaly have fallen.

Quote:
Please, explain how it costs money "especially because the troops are not seing much combat"?


Food and equipment.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 Jan 2006, 03:00
Quote:
The Luftwaffe would be dealing with the RAF while the German Army would land.


And who would be dealing with Royal Navy and providing tactical support to German troops? Ridicilous,

Quote:
Food and equipment.


No, it is cheaper to keep forces at bay.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 09 Jan 2006, 00:29
Quote:
And who would be dealing with Royal Navy and providing tactical support to German troops? Ridicilous,


England could not use the Royal Navy to prevent an invasion through the English Channel because it would be devestated from Stuka attacks. Also, although not in the same league as England, the German navy is not a push over. Also consider the French ships captured could be use against the British.

Quote:
No, it is cheaper to keep forces at bay.


It is, but it is pointless to to keep supplying inactive troops when they could be used in combat.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 Jan 2006, 02:05
Quote:
England could not use the Royal Navy to prevent an invasion through the English Channel because it would be devestated from Stuka attacks.


You don't seem to get it, Luftwaffe could not do so manu things at the same time. Air superiority would be needed before the invasion could be launched.

Quote:
it is pointless to to keep supplying inactive troops when they could be used in combat.


Keeping troops in France and Norway and suppying them to make sure they are ready for combat is pointless? Intresting...

Quote:
Also consider the French ships captured could be use against the British.


Germans had not captured any noteable French warships.
Last edited by Carius on 09 Jan 2006, 03:18, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 09 Jan 2006, 02:48
Quote:
England could not use the Royal Navy to prevent an invasion through the English Channel because it would be devestated from Stuka attacks.

Until the Stukas were shot down by the RAF. That's the whole point - with air superiority over the Channel during the German invasion, the RAF could prevent the Luftwaffe from "devastating the Royal Navy", which would then be able to wreak carnage on the helpless German troops in the landing craft. Why can't you understand this?

Quote:
Also, although not in the same league as England, the German navy is not a push over. Also consider the French ships captured could be use against the British.

Churchill had ordered the French fleet to be destroyed in its harbour when France surrendered to Germany in 1940. Several thousand French sailors were killed, and every major French warship was sunk by the British. This is why the French found it easier than they might otherwise have done to collaborate with the occupying Germans and form Vichy France. "Perfidious Albion" had stabbed proud France in the back, etc etc. The point is, there were no French ships left for the Germans to use against the British. Churchill made sure of that.

Quote:
It is, but it is pointless to to keep supplying inactive troops when they could be used in combat.

It's not a waste if they prevent a country from being invaded and occupied by the enemy. If Hitler didn't have troops stationed in Norway or France "doing nothing" as you put it, then the British could simply have walked into Norway or France and taken over. Those German troops were not "doing nothing"; by their mere presence in the occupied nations, they were ensuring that those nations remained in the German sphere of influence. This is not wasteful, it is strategically essential.

Edit:

Carius.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.