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: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: crazyewok

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.


Yes at the start Churchill was, that's my point.
It wasn't till 41, 42 that the US built planes that "closed the gap" and stopped the uboats, then it became a u boat turkey shoot

Stats prove nothing

Most u boats went down after they closed the gaps,

No but ok 80 odd million deaths but Germany were overhyped, conquered most of Europe, overhyped, total world war, overhyped?
Really, still being discussed today and overhyped

Russia, the US of A, and the British Empire and the nazis were overhyped
Yeah, push over weren't they



BBC history, the battle of the Atlantic, 500 cargo ships lost, but hey, what's that mean to anyone
edit on 8-7-2017 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
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.


I think eventually, even without United States participation in Europe, that due to the fact the British High Seas Fleet was vastly superior to the Deutsche Marine, and the continued trend to develop naval airpower, would have meant the presence of British carriers in the North Sea at some point which would have bombed the hell out of German ports and costal cities.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: majesticgent

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.


Again the other huge problem Germany had that Frustrated Speer.

It was the multiple variants of tanks Hitler insisted on. It made standardization of parts near impossible slowing production.

Germany should of focused on Just the Panzer IV as its main tank, tiger as secondary tank and the Sturmgeschütz III that doubled as both a effective Assault gun and tank destroyer.

Doing that would have drastically increased production.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Every outfit has its weak and strong points. You dwell on what an insider said about the Nazi party. OK, nothing holy about it from beginning to end, a party of absolute hatred.

Most of us dwell, while in memory, on the physical Hell that regime caused upon a major portion of the world whether. So forget the words, policies and ideologies of Nazism and look only at the human loss and suffering they caused people around the whole god-damned world.

--It is often hard to determine fools from those that simply want to stir up a debate fore their own reasons. But fools they be even then.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: crazyewok

Every outfit has its weak and strong points. You dwell on what an insider said about the Nazi party. OK, nothing holy about it from beginning to end, a party of absolute hatred.

Most of us dwell, while in memory, on the physical Hell that regime caused upon a major portion of the world whether. So forget the words, policies and ideologies of Nazism and look only at the human loss and suffering they caused people around the whole god-damned world.

The point of the thread is to highlight the fundamental flaw of the policies and ideologies of Nazism and how those ideologies set the Third Reich up to fail from the beginning. National Socialism was flawed and failed concept that never had hope of a sustained government.




originally posted by: Aliensun


--It is often hard to determine fools from those that simply want to stir up a debate fore their own reasons. But fools they be even then.


Are you calling me a fool?

This is a history forum. If you don't want to debate History go somewhere else.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Are you calling me a fool?


I love how people are completely discounting Albert Speer, potentially the most intelligent man in the Nazi Party, and how he details the many failings of the regime.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: crazyewok

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.


Yes at the start Churchill was, that's my point.
It wasn't till 41, 42 that the US built planes that "closed the gap" and stopped the uboats, then it became a u boat turkey shoot

Stats prove nothing

Most u boats went down after they closed the gaps,

No but ok 80 odd million deaths but Germany were overhyped, conquered most of Europe, overhyped, total world war, overhyped?
Really, still being discussed today and overhyped

Russia, the US of A, and the British Empire and the nazis were overhyped
Yeah, push over weren't they



BBC history, the battle of the Atlantic, 500 cargo ships lost, but hey, what's that mean to anyone



Your just ranting now.

I am up for a mature debate but lets try not to rant.


Also the other factor is Hitler's government was never sustainable in the long run.

Even if Hilter had Beat Russia and blooded the UK nose enough to accept a peace treaty the Third Reich would likely have fallen. They dog eat dog corrupt government would have torn itself apart soon after the war mostly likely on Hitler's death (he was a rather sickly man) if not before.

Plus Germany was not exactly unified. There was a lot of German who at best just tolerated the NAZI Regime, mainly out of fear and there was plenty of Germans that spoke out and resisted with up to 3 million Germans passed through concentration camp for crimes such as sedition or speaking out against the regime and that's likely a low estimate as it doesn't take into account the Germans who just "disappeared", plus the regime took great efforts to suppress information about numbers of Germans opposing Hitler due to fact it damaged the image of a "united" Germany.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: crazyewok
Are you calling me a fool?


I love how people are completely discounting Albert Speer, potentially the most intelligent man in the Nazi Party, and how he details the many failings of the regime.


Yup.

If anyone knew the capability of NAZI Germany it was him.

Hell everyone else in Hitlers circle where basically brain-dead thugs.

The fact Borrman, Goerring and Himmler where building palaces and castle during the height of the war is a testament to the pure stupidity of the NAZI elite.

I don't know why they even hung Goerring at Nuremburg.....they should have given him a meddle for helping the allied war effort with his laziness and incompetence!

But Albert Speer memoirs are meticulous and very good insight into the failings of National Socialism and Hitler as well as the home front war effort.

And I respect he took his trial and punishment like a man, taking fall responsibility for his crimes rather than trying to Weddle out like the others.

When your government is based around Goebbels, Himmler, Hess, Heydrich , Borman and Goering it was going to end badly. Hitler literally hired the idiot brigade.



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



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: crazyewok
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.


I think eventually, even without United States participation in Europe, that due to the fact the British High Seas Fleet was vastly superior to the Deutsche Marine, and the continued trend to develop naval airpower, would have meant the presence of British carriers in the North Sea at some point which would have bombed the hell out of German ports and costal cities.


No way north sea was suicide for the British navy. They didn't even want to bring ships into the channel. The British navy spent a lot of time escorting ships from its colonies.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
No way north sea was suicide for the British navy.


With the eventual naval air supremacy the British would have established it would have been inevitable that the Nazis lost the North Sea.

The British had dozens of carriers to the Kriegsmarine's zero.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Well your just parroting one man, Speer

Some Brits supported the nazis, a prince?
Some Brits opposed the war
The Irish allied with the Nazis
So what if there is opposition to a political party, there is always opposition. Who cares, it's irrelevant

500 cargo ships were lost in the Atlantic, no bigg issue, no comment, submarine warfare, no problem.
80 million lives lost, just ranting, Just 80 million lives by an overhyped political system that nearly conquered all of Europe, overhyped? Really?

Hitlers government wasn't sustainable, has history ever shown us a government that is. Really, so what?

I am up for a mature discussion as well, with evidence from more than one man called Speer, yet you won't watch YouTube, I have offered links you have ignored

There is nothing mature about this, about you accepting only Speer and his comments

Nothing mature about 80 million dead and saying Germany was overhyped, the invasion of most of Europe, the collapse of Belgium, France, Poland, northen Europe, overhyped
Incompetent, crazy, psychopathic, poorly managed, or any other comment I would accept, but overhyped? Conquering most of Europe, starting a war that devastated so many lives,,costing 80 odd million, overhyped.

This thread posed a question, I don't agree
If Hitler didn't invade Russia, I think he would have invaded Britain
Eventually after a protracted war, Russia would have invaded the fascist state

If you have other information, not just Speer, I would be interested

I am ranting by repeating what you are saying
edit on 8-7-2017 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: dragonridr
No way north sea was suicide for the British navy.


With the eventual naval air supremacy the British would have established it would have been inevitable that the Nazis lost the North Sea.

The British had dozens of carriers to the Kriegsmarine's zero.


Yeah, but one torpedo and that carrier is a reef



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: crazyewok
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.


I think eventually, even without United States participation in Europe, that due to the fact the British High Seas Fleet was vastly superior to the Deutsche Marine, and the continued trend to develop naval airpower, would have meant the presence of British carriers in the North Sea at some point which would have bombed the hell out of German ports and costal cities.


You make an interesting point. On the surface, completely valid.

The lack of the U.S. would have far delayed a physical invasion of Europe, however. Without which, victory wouldn't have been possible. Also, the lack of the U.S. allows the 55 infantry divisions and the 11 tank divisions stationed in Europe due to U.S. entry to be largely redeployed to Russia. Let's say 2/3s of them, for arguments sake. More than enough to turn the tide back into Germany's favor in the east....

Now what? Anyone's guess.....



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
If Hitler didn't invade Russia, I think he would have invaded Britain


You have it backwards. Operation Sea Lion was cancelled in 1940 once the Germans lost the Battle of Britain, after which Hitler diverted his attention to Barbarossa.



edit on 8-7-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: I ♥ cheese pizza.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
The lack of the U.S. would have far delayed a physical invasion of Europe, however. Without which, victory wouldn't have been possible. Also, the lack of the U.S. allows the 55 infantry divisions and the 11 tank divisions stationed in Europe due to U.S. entry to be largely redeployed to Russia. Let's say 2/3s of them, for arguments sake. More than enough to turn the tide back into Germany's favor in the east....

Now what? Anyone's guess.....


I don't think the British would have needed to invade Europe once they had near air supremacy. Hitler always had a cease fire/treaty on the table for them and a pull back in France/The Low Countries would have been traded for peace with the United Kingdom so Germany could turn its full attention to Russia.

One of Hitler's greatest strategic blunders was the mutual aggression pact he signed with the Japanese not knowing of their plans to bomb Pearl Harbor.




edit on 8-7-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: Armaments 2:9-21 And the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats...



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman
There is plenty of evidence to the fact that Hitler always desired a alliance with the UK.

And unless you can show me Germans that walk on water and flying Panzer Tanks there is no way Germans where crossing the Channel.

How can they do that with the largest navy in the world blocking and UK Air superiority over the Channel? Not possible.

The only thing Germany could do is wear the UK down through U boat action to a point the UK settled for a negotiated peace.

I also gave another source from Clay Blair that sated the damage the U Boats actually done in real terms. Fact is only 10% of Merchant ships got targeted and only 10% of those got sunk! Only 1% of British shipping was sunk! 1%!



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: crazyewok
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.


I think eventually, even without United States participation in Europe, that due to the fact the British High Seas Fleet was vastly superior to the Deutsche Marine, and the continued trend to develop naval airpower, would have meant the presence of British carriers in the North Sea at some point which would have bombed the hell out of German ports and costal cities.


You make an interesting point. On the surface, completely valid.

The lack of the U.S. would have far delayed a physical invasion of Europe, however. Without which, victory wouldn't have been possible. Also, the lack of the U.S. allows the 55 infantry divisions and the 11 tank divisions stationed in Europe due to U.S. entry to be largely redeployed to Russia. Let's say 2/3s of them, for arguments sake. More than enough to turn the tide back into Germany's favor in the east....

Now what? Anyone's guess.....


Yeah it would have delayed war. Likely 2 or 3 years with of course millions of more deaths on all sides.

USA certainly speed things up and likely cut down the cost in blood.

Plus it stopped a complete take over of Mainland Europe by Stalin, a prospect as bad as a Europe under complete control by Hitler!



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
And unless you can show me Germans that walk on water and flying Panzer Tanks there is no way Germans where crossing the Channel.

How can they do that with the largest navy in the world blocking and UK Air superiority over the Channel? Not possible.


All three branches of the German military knew any invasion of the British Isles had a higher probability of failure than success. Declassified documents released after the war showed Churchill was also prepared to nerve gas the invading Germans if they managed to obtain a foothold. This all became moot once Germany lost the Battle of Britain.

Any talk of Germany potentially invading the Home Islands is just fanciful exaggeration.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Raggedyman
If Hitler didn't invade Russia, I think he would have invaded Britain


You have it backwards. Operation Sea Lion was cancelled in 1940 once the Germans lost the Battle of Britain, after which Hitler diverted his attention to invading Russia.



I have it backwards, because?

If Hitler didn't invade Russia (he did) then he would have invaded Britain ( he didn't because he invaded Russia)

So I can't get what didn't happen backwards, can't even get what didn't happen forwards either



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah most the German Generals knew it would end in a disaster. Even if they got the troops over, somehow, how would they get supply's over?

Dontiz had the right strategy by U-Boat warfare but he was not given enough U-boats for the job to make a true impact and Grand Admiral Reader kept interfering until his removal by which time it was to late.


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



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join