It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nazi Germany, overhyped?

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: crazyewok

Britain were just so tough, they conquered the nasty nazis on their own
Russia won the war, not Britain, not the US

Without the US Britain would have starved.
Rationing because there were limited supplies in the UK

The war was over in 43, Stalingrad was the end for Germany, poor decision making by those in charge
Germany was not overestimated, just poorly managed


Never said the UK conquered the Germans on there own.

You not providing any sources for you arguments only rants that seem from a triggered person who has his view on the war challenged.

Britain navy was up to the task of dealing with the U-boats.
Sure there where losses and supplies got tight but the Royal navy made sure enough broke through.
It was Royal navy ships dp the majority of the convoy escort, it was British commandos that stole the enigma machine and it was British people that broke the code.

Britain held its own.

Doubtful it could of liberated the rest of Europe on its own but it held its own.

edit on 8-7-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: crazyewok

. If they had stopped the D day invasion and they almost did Germany would have won the war.



I have to agree with you on all points except that one.

Germany would of had to have beat Russia, UK and Usa by 1947 otherwise there cobalt and tungesn reserves run out and Germany war industry collapses.
That was cleary stated by Albert Speer Germanys arms minister.
Infact he put 1947 as best case.

No way was Germany hitting that 1947 deadline.

Maybe Russia? But how was it going to invade England?
The UK was a impenetrable fortress by 1944.
Germany would had to deal with the RAF, USAF and also the royal navy AND the fledging US navy.
Germany at this point was outmatched by UK military production AND it had to deal with the USA.

Germany was royally #ed by 1944 whatever happened.
edit on 8-7-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: crazyewok

. If they had stopped the D day invasion and they almost did Germany would have won the war.



I have to agree with you on all points except that one.

Germany would of had to have beat Russia, UK and Usa by 1947 otherwise there cobalt and tungesn reserves run out and Germany war industry collapses.
That was cleary stated by Albert Speer Germanys arms minister.
Infact he put 1947 as best case.

No way was Germany hitting that 1947 deadline.

Maybe Russia? But how was it going to invade England?
The UK was a impenetrable fortress by 1944.
Germany would had to deal with the RAF, USAF and also the royal navy AND the fledging US navy.
Germany at this point was outmatched by UK military production AND it had to deal with the USA.

Germany was royally #ed by 1944 whatever happened.


Supplies would have come available through Spain and even asia. As far as impregnable well yes an invasion would have been near impossible. However of they stopped the D day invasion. Troops could have focused on the Russians without the Allied troops in Europe Russia wouldn't have been able to continue. D day managed to take away resources from Germany as well as not allow them to concentrate their troops. Ultimately without D day Brittain would have fAllen through attrition. Yes the British navy was strong however the U boats would have eventually worn them down. Being an island nation has advantages but the disadvantage is getting supplies. The Germans could have destroyed the manufacturing in Britain they chose not to. To assume they were our of the game is silly.

In fact many don't know this but Eisenhower wrote this a couple of days before the invasion.

"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone."

So even he was not ruling out the possibility of losing. And if it wasn't for Hitler stupidity in not allowing his panzer's to enter the battle D day would have failed. Luckily for the Axis they convinced Hitler the real invasion was going to come across the channel. He thought D day to be a diversion attempt. Had he listened to his generals we would probably be speaking German at least in the UK. Not sure anyone could have taken over the US at that time even with Japan's help. Japan was tied down fighting China as well. But even with that they probably could have taken California. Going deeper in they just wouldn't have had the troops.

The Russian's saved the British because if Germany could have just them to deal with the British would have lost. Hitler could never mass the force necessary to invade. If the Russians were not in the picture he would have.
edit on 7/8/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I don't intend to provide sources, nazi Germany's was run into the ground by incompetence
That doesn't mean it was overhyped, in my opinion

The British isles were in real turmoil and had the US not entered the way, had Russia not been invaded till latter, I would imagine a very different world

Search YouTube, how Germany could have won wwii
It was poor strategy and bad luck
Definetly not overhyped



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Sorry but again I strongly disgree.


The numbers of german troops we had pinned down in the western front was a drop in a very large bucket compared to frrance.


By 1944 also the U boat threat was near over. The UK along was sinking U boats faster than Germany could make them, coupled with the US navy? The U-boats where by that time where only good at taking the odd pot shot.

The USAF and RAF had complete and utter air superiority by 1944.

And german production could not equal a fraction of US and UK production combined.


As for England speaking German? That was never going to happen.
If thing started to go really sour the UK would of sorted a negotiated peace.
Hitler never wanted the UK as a enemy in the first place and greatly admired the UK as a symbol of Aryan superiority. Hitler always had a cease fire on the table for the UK and it was stated the terms he was willing to accept is German withdrawal from France and garentee of the British Empire in exchange that britain removed itself from the war.
All hitler wanted was Britain out the war in the most expedient way, so if that meant a cease-fire then so be it.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: crazyewok

I don't intend to provide sources, nazi Germany's was run into the ground by incompetence
That doesn't mean it was overhyped, in my opinion

The British isles were in real turmoil and had the US not entered the way, had Russia not been invaded till latter, I would imagine a very different world

Search YouTube, how Germany could have won wwii
It was poor strategy and bad luck
Definetly not overhyped



I dont do youtube I am afraid.

As for diffrent world I agree.

Germany and the UK would of ended in a stalemate.

UK would not have been able to invade france but Germany not able to invade the UK either being unable to overcome the Royal Navy and RAF.
Instead Germany would of wore down the UK enough to accept hitlers offer of a peace treaty. UK leaves the war while Germany continues with it Eastern Europe Ambitions.
Only to get curb stomped by Stalin still who has had more time to prepare!



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Just some figures about how much the U boat "crisis" cost thevUK.

only 10% of transatlantic convoys that sailed were attacked, and of those attacked only 10% on average of the ships were lost. Overall, more than 99% of all ships sailing to and from the British Isles during World War II did so successfully. Those are figures from Clay blairs book Hitler's U-Boat War the hunted.

So they had the potential to be a threat, but it seems they where kept in check by a viligent royal and Canadian navy and later US navy.
edit on 8-7-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   
more data on U-boats

This shows all the U-boats launched, number of kills and date of sinkimg.

Pretty grim reading as the majority of U-boats seemed to be sunk before they even got there first kill!

Seems like a lot of wasted resources to kill such a small percentage of shipping.
The German navy may as well dumped 700,000 tons of steal into the ocean and shot 30,000 sailors.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Nazi Germany had some bleeding edge weapons at the time, V2 rockets, jet and rocket fighters & bombers, tanks that didn't have a match until later in the war (just to name a few), U-boats, but terrible strategy.

For example, instead of using the Me-262 as a fighter, the way the Luftwaffe's leadership wanted, Hitler demanded that they used it as a combat air support bomber. Major tactical blunder, as the allies were relentlessly bombing Germany's factories and especially more so after gaining air superiority. Eventually the Me-262 was used for its prime role as a bomber destroyer, but about time that decision was made it was already too late, the Allies came out with the P-51D variant which could escort the bombers deep into enemy territory and could shoot down the 262s which would explode even if they took very little damage.

Another tactical blunder was using the Ar 234 jet as a scout plane instead of a bomber. About time it was used as a bomber the war was pretty much over and Germany's fate was sealed.

Hitler's decision not to invest in heavy bombers was another misstep. The Stuka dive bombers were able to cause damage early in the war with the Blitzkrieg, but against any type of fighter they were sitting ducks (see the Battle of Britain). Had Hitler allowed the Luftwaffe to invest in heavy bombers that could carry a destructive payload at high altitude early in the war, they could have stifled some production and really caused the UK some considerable damage, more so than the V2s and the light & dive bombers could have possibly done. The same could be said of the Soviets if the Luftwaffe had used heavy bombers to bomb their factories.

All of this led eventually lead to the Allies pounding German factories which meant they couldn't produce as many of their superior tanks. The Allied tanks used considerable numbers and simply overwhelmed the panzers on the Western Front; on the Eastern Front the Soviets had tanks that were evenly matched or better than the panzers namely the T-34s. Later in the war the Allies, on the Western Front, had tanks that could go toe to toe with the panzers and win without overwhelming numbers, and these tanks rolled right into Germany. War over.

Even if Germany utilized their technology the correct way, they still would have lost the war. It was not sustainable for them to fight on three fronts. They reached a stalemate on the Western front and lost major ground, invaded the Soviets during the worst possible time, in Winter, and were doomed on the Southern front which left them defeated.

A lot of the "hype" and mysticism of the Nazi's came from their wild views and the technology they were able to dream up and implement.
edit on 8-7-2017 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: majesticgent

One thing about the V rockets was there uselessness military wise.
Because of there inaccuracy they could not target military targets easily and all they could do is be launched at civilian targets. So all they did was piss the British civilians of , nothing more.

I believe it was Montgomery that said he would smile every time a V rocket was launched at the UK because it meant ten less jet fighters that actually where a military threat could be produced.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok
S&F
I do not think I have read anything you have posted that I could not agree with.. Dad was in Patton's army and did the battle of the bulge... The later models (3&4) of the Panzer tanks and their firepower was to be respected with their 75mm... Also the 88s on the heavy underpowered Tiger tanks were extremely actuate and long ranged compared to some of the crap we fielded. However against Russian T-34s the Germans would have had to kill something like 20 for every one the German's lost to make things more even... Numbers really did make a difference...... which seems to be lost on some of the world's leaders of today.
youtu.be...



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: majesticgent

One thing about the V rockets was there uselessness military wise.
Because of there inaccuracy they could not target military targets easily and all they could do is be launched at civilian targets. So all they did was piss the British civilians of , nothing more.

I believe it was Montgomery that said he would smile every time a V rocket was launched at the UK because it meant ten less jet fighters that actually where a military threat could be produced.



True, but imagine the sheer terror they caused when they first were used. Especially since as you said most of the targets they wound up hitting were civilian of nature. It also added to the lore and fear of the Nazi's.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
You hit on Hitler's goal he had made quiet overtures to the Brits and Americans for an armistice so Germany could funneled their remaining divisions to the East to hold back the Soviets against an invasion of the Fatherland.  If Normandy would have been lost, it is likely that Churchill and Roosevelt would have re-evaluated this option.


But I think Germany would have had a nuclear bomb by 45 or 46. And then don't think he wouldn't have crossed the channel.

edit on 7/8/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/8/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: crazyewok
S&F
The later models (3&4) of the Panzer tanks and their firepower was to be respected with their 75mm... Also the 88s on the heavy underpowered Tiger tanks were extremely actuate and long ranged compared to some of the crap we fielded. However against Russian T-34s the Germans would have had to kill something like 20 for every one the German's lost to make things more even... Numbers really did make a difference...... which seems to be lost on some of the world's leaders of today.


Very true and had their war machine not been stifled they would have come out with more tanks even the Panzer VIII Maus which would have been unstoppable by anything, but a bomb from the air; which is exactly would have been their fate since the Allies had air superiority during the time the prototypes were developed.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Yet Churchill was terrified of the submarines, that doesn't matter
Just what you think then?
Subs small easy to make, yet a cargo ship, nothing?

Churchills the" u boat peril " comments meant nothing
I am going to believe Churchill over an Ewok, sorry
edit on 8-7-2017 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: majesticgent

Speer mentions the Panzer VIII Maus and what a waste it would be.
He thinks they would of only been able to produce a couple a day at best.

Plus the roads and bridges would not have been able to take the strain of such a heavy tank.

This was a problem speer pointed out with Hitler. He would come up with a weapon plane that seems awesome on paper and ideal conditions would be unstable.
Problem is Hitler never took into account that battles where rarely fought in ideal conditions.
The fact that such a weapon would likely never make it to the battle field because of logistic problems.never occurred to him.

A example Speer presented was with the introduction of the first Tiger tanks. They had 4 prototypes to deploy. Speer and the generals wanted to wait for a couple of days as the current battle being fought was on marsh land, the worst possible Terrain for a heavy tank of 75 tons! Hitler demanded they be deployed straight away, the result? They lost the 4 tiger tanks as they ended up trapped and overwhelmed in the marsh.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: crazyewok

Yet Churchill was terrified of the submarines, that doesn't matter

Yes in 1940 at the start I bet he was terrified. But he did not know at that point the Royal navy would keep the U-boats in check. Hell the threat was still there as there was the risk of the Germans adapting with new tactics and technology, lucky however the royal Navy stayed one step ahead. But one step would terrify me.



originally posted by: Raggedyman

Just what you think then?

Not what I think

I am going on the mathematics and statistics.



originally posted by: Raggedyman


Churchills the u boat peril meant nothing
I am going to believe Churchill over an Ewok, sorry


My judgments are based on the stats I posted.

I trust statistics more than a single quote by Churchill at the start of the war when he had no clue on how effective or ineffective the Royal navy defences would be.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
NAZI Germany is depicted in out history books as a efficient, ruthless unstoppable war machine that could only be toppled by the combined efforts of Russia, USA and UK.......but is that really true?

I have been reading Albert Speers inside the third riech. For those who dont know who he was, he started off as Hitlers architect, became one of hitlers closest friends and ended up in charge of the German war manufacturing. He gained a reputation for being the only NAZI to admit responsibility for the regimes crimes and after spending 20 years in prison wrote a very detailed acounts of the inside politics and state of the german economy.


His premise is that NAZI Germany was fundamentally flawed with corruption at every level. Hitler was self obsessed with his own passions and at the best of times lazy, at the worst of times micromanging and sending contradictory or vague orders causing blunders. Top Riech ministers where too busy back stabbing each other than doing there jobs or in Goerings case not doing anything at all except holding parties and plundering art.

This attitude extended right down to the very bottom with minor ministers pilfering resources for non war related vanity projects.

This led into the bigger problem was that the German economy and industry was not fully mobilised until the very end. Hitler resisted calls for total industrial mobilisation out of fear deprivation of luxorys would cause civil unrest. That meant all though Germany industry was greater than Great Britain it could not keep up with the UK military production who's economy was fully mobilised. And of couse Germany had to deal with Russias industry too and later the USA..........

To compound the problem Speers request to use German women labour like the allies was denied by hitler as it was deemed "harmful to German woman hood". Instead speer was forced to use slave labour which turned out to be useless due to a mixture of sabotage
, problems with language barriers and the fact the SS guards mistreated the slaves.


The next problem was its strategic resource supply, of course oil was the most famous problem but the most serious was Chromium. Germany only had a finite supply of Chromium and it was scheduled to run out in 1947 at the latest. Without Chromium there would have been no new tanks or artillery. End of war.

Fact was Hitlers sucees between on 1939 and 1941 was built on blind luck.
Hitler generally feared the UK getting involved when he invaded Poland and was gambling they would let it slide like Czechoslovakia. Advice from Generals was that war with France and Britain would like be lost, hence why Hitler not only sought a alliance with the UK right up till the brink but also had the offer of a peace treaty open rather than surrender of the UK.
It seems hitler only won France due to luck and poor and out dated military doctrines on the side of France and Britain.

It seems to me the entire third riech was just a very week house of cards that never stood a chance. Whatever happened it would of collapsed at some point. France and Britain probably didnt even need to get involved as it would of gone down eventually due to NAZI incompetence and mismanagement.

The entire view of the strong and unstoppable third Riech was just smoke and mirrors......


They were lucky. They did have an officer corps that far outperformed the equivalents of Britain and especially France. Tactical improvements over the largely WWI mentality of the rest of Europe played a part, ae well.

They moved before even matching the numbers and quality in tanks, for example, in France.

Two key individuals Guderian and Rommel, then colonels both commanding divisions developed the tactic of by-passing pockets of French strength and continued their push west-ward. The key 'by-pass' being the Maginot Line.

Blitzkrieg. Speed. Unheard of previously.

Luck? Yes. The Germans manufactured that luck. Add in political incompetence and the formula was in place.

What they pulled off, especially with your likely valid input, gives pause. Their military, from the top down....simply outstanding.

Having said that, they got what they deserved.....



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: majesticgent
This was a problem speer pointed out with Hitler. He would come up with a weapon plane that seems awesome on paper and ideal conditions would be unstable.
Problem is Hitler never took into account that battles where rarely fought in ideal conditions.
The fact that such a weapon would likely never make it to the battle field because of logistic problems.never occurred to him.


This is also true, the Maus would have only really been useful with heavy infantry support, air superiority and a train to take it where it needed to go.

Had the German's just focused on the Panzer IV. They would have fared a lot better than they did. They could build more faster and they were capable at multiple things.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok
NAZI Germany is depicted in out history books as a efficient, ruthless unstoppable war machine that could only be toppled by the combined efforts of Russia, USA and UK.......but is that really true?

I have been reading Albert Speers inside the third riech. For those who dont know who he was, he started off as Hitlers architect, became one of hitlers closest friends and ended up in charge of the German war manufacturing. He gained a reputation for being the only NAZI to admit responsibility for the regimes crimes and after spending 20 years in prison wrote a very detailed acounts of the inside politics and state of the german economy.


His premise is that NAZI Germany was fundamentally flawed with corruption at every level. Hitler was self obsessed with his own passions and at the best of times lazy, at the worst of times micromanging and sending contradictory or vague orders causing blunders. Top Riech ministers where too busy back stabbing each other than doing there jobs or in Goerings case not doing anything at all except holding parties and plundering art.

This attitude extended right down to the very bottom with minor ministers pilfering resources for non war related vanity projects.

This led into the bigger problem was that the German economy and industry was not fully mobilised until the very end. Hitler resisted calls for total industrial mobilisation out of fear deprivation of luxorys would cause civil unrest. That meant all though Germany industry was greater than Great Britain it could not keep up with the UK military production who's economy was fully mobilised. And of couse Germany had to deal with Russias industry too and later the USA..........

To compound the problem Speers request to use German women labour like the allies was denied by hitler as it was deemed "harmful to German woman hood". Instead speer was forced to use slave labour which turned out to be useless due to a mixture of sabotage
, problems with language barriers and the fact the SS guards mistreated the slaves.


The next problem was its strategic resource supply, of course oil was the most famous problem but the most serious was Chromium. Germany only had a finite supply of Chromium and it was scheduled to run out in 1947 at the latest. Without Chromium there would have been no new tanks or artillery. End of war.

Fact was Hitlers sucees between on 1939 and 1941 was built on blind luck.
Hitler generally feared the UK getting involved when he invaded Poland and was gambling they would let it slide like Czechoslovakia. Advice from Generals was that war with France and Britain would like be lost, hence why Hitler not only sought a alliance with the UK right up till the brink but also had the offer of a peace treaty open rather than surrender of the UK.
It seems hitler only won France due to luck and poor and out dated military doctrines on the side of France and Britain.

It seems to me the entire third riech was just a very week house of cards that never stood a chance. Whatever happened it would of collapsed at some point. France and Britain probably didnt even need to get involved as it would of gone down eventually due to NAZI incompetence and mismanagement.

The entire view of the strong and unstoppable third Riech was just smoke and mirrors......


They were lucky. They did have an officer corps that far outperformed the equivalents of Britain and especially France. Tactical improvements over the largely WWI mentality of the rest of Europe played a part, ae well.

They moved before even matching the numbers and quality in tanks, for example, in France.

Two key individuals Guderian and Rommel, then colonels both commanding divisions developed the tactic of by-passing pockets of French strength and continued their push west-ward. The key 'by-pass' being the Maginot Line.

Blitzkrieg. Speed. Unheard of previously.

Luck? Yes. The Germans manufactured that luck. Add in political incompetence and the formula was in place.

What they pulled off, especially with your likely valid input, gives pause. Their military, from the top down....simply outstanding.

Having said that, they got what they deserved.....



Exactly.

German military doctrine was outstanding. The German generals at the start of the war did not have much to work with but they knew how best to use what they had to maximum effect.

Britain and France where playing Soccer while Germany was playing American Football.

Luckily the UK managed to adapt in Africa in time. Unfortunately the USA fell into the same trap when they joined the war too and got mauled initially until they sacked or reassigned the old school officers and brought in fresh blood under Eisenhower.




top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join