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: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah, but one torpedo and that carrier is a reef


They didn't have one carrier, they had and were building over 60. Germany had no means to defeat the United Kingdom militarily.

As a matter of fact, since the German atomic program was so far behind the Allies as to be practically nonexistent the British could at some point deployed atomic weapons on the Germans if need be.




posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
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


Wrong. Hitler invaded Russia because he couldn't invade Britain.

Stick to your YouTube and leave the history to people who actually know it.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah, but one torpedo and that carrier is a reef


They didn't have one carrier, they had and were building over 60. Germany had no means to defeat the United Kingdom militarily.

As a matter of fact, since the German atomic program was so far behind the Allies as to be practically nonexistent the British could at some point deployed atomic weapons on the Germans if need be.

The Atomic project was another example of the flawed NAZI ideology and it pure stupidity.

Hitler had no interest in it and wanted it cancelled because he viewed it as pseudo "Jewish science" as most the leading scientists in that area where Jewish.....

What a retard.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
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.


I think even if they built 'enough' U-boats the British still would have won the Battle of the Atlantic without United States military participation due to Lend Lease and their having cracked the Enigma Code.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Hitler had no interest in it and wanted it cancelled because he viewed it as pseudo "Jewish science" as most the leading scientists in that area where Jewish.....

What a retard.


All it would have taken is the delivery of a couple of atomic weapons to the British by the United States (if their own program could not produce them quickly enough) and the war in Europe would have been over.

Hitler truly was a moron.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: crazyewok
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.


I think even if they built 'enough' U-boats the British still would have won the Battle of the Atlantic without United States military participation due to Lend Lease and their having cracked the Enigma Code.


Maybe though Germany MIGHT have been able to grind the UK into a negotiated piece, IE a draw. Maybe, its unlikely though as you said the Royal Navy had pretty much free reign.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: crazyewok
Hitler had no interest in it and wanted it cancelled because he viewed it as pseudo "Jewish science" as most the leading scientists in that area where Jewish.....

What a retard.


All it would have taken is the delivery of a couple of atomic weapons to the British by the United States (if their own program could not produce them quickly enough) and the war in Europe would have been over.

Hitler truly was a moron.


To be honest the Irony of "Jewish Science" being used to nuke him in his bunker would be to funny to resist.

To be honest the UK didn't really need nukes as we had stockpiles of Nerve gas we could of dumped on Berlin and all the German city's if things had really got dire.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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 Country's 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.


Yes, a negotiated result is a possible scenario. Without that scenario, however, actual victory would require boots on the ground in Europe.

Seeing we're playing 'what if's' with a non-entry by the U.S., then why would Hitler even bother agreeing to the terms you've suggested? I've always contended Hitler's biggest mistake-and there's no shortage to choose from- was his declaration of war against the U.S..

Hitler's move against the Soviets was actually strategically and tactically sound. No U.S. and a likely victory in the east is achieved with both food from the east and oil from the south assured.

If there was a negotiation, it would be from a position of German strength, land-wise. Failure of those negotiations would have debilitating cost to GB to 'invade'.

My guess would be GB retains their Islands and cedes Europe. Take it or leave it. (This is fun)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I tend to think due to British air supremacy that reduction of German manufacturing capabilities would have pushed Hitler to come to terms for retaining parts, not all, of Europe. He was willing to pull back from France, I see him keeping most of Eastern Europe and parts of Asia.

The Germans just could not produce enough aircraft once the Battle of Britain was lost. The strategic blunder of having the Luftwaffe bomb London instead of British factories was another huge contributing factor in losing the war.

As Ewok said, Hitler was a retard.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Well from the information I have gleaned Hitlers terms would have been this:

Guarantee the safety and independence of the British Islands and its empire

Releasing France and possibly Belgium as long as it remains disarmed.

UK has to agree to leave all European mainland Issues to Germany and Accept that Europe is the sphere of its influence.

Cede some of Frances and Belgium's colony's to Germany in Africa.

Agree to trade access to Britain's resource.


Those are what Hitler was mulling over around 1941. And it why Hess decided to steal a plane fly to England and try and negotiate such a treaty behind Hitler's back.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Maybe though Germany MIGHT have been able to grind the UK into a negotiated piece, IE a draw. Maybe, its unlikely though as you said the Royal Navy had pretty much free reign.


The British Navy was the crucial aspect, they had the North Sea bottled up and would have eventually reduced German ports and manufacturing to the point where it further hindered war time production. German had a material issue, with the United States supplying Britain he had no chance.

The combined manufacturing might of both the United States and Britain far outpace anything the Germans hoped to rival, even with slave labor.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
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%!




Yes Hitlers wanted an alliance with the U.K., the house of Windsor were Germans after all...
It doesn't change the fact that the Nazis were over or under hyped

Crossing the channel was not going to happen after the Battle of Britain, but the u boats devastated British resources early in the war years. Russia would have supplied the Nazis with the materials and oil they needed to re arm and re supply, they had an agreement that Germany broke when hitler invaded Russia.
Then Germany could have had another crack at Britain.

500 cargo ships were lost, only the US Liberty ship builders could keep up with the loses. The Brits God bless them were being devastated in the early years

I gave you a link and other details about Churchill being terrified of the u boat peril, but no, it doesn't suit your opinion so you just ignored it

3500 merchant vessels,were,sunk by the axis in the Atlantic, 175 warships
Quora, during world war 11, how many ships,were sunk by the german navy (search that website)

Battle of Atlantic statistics website
British loses, 2177 merchant shipping

You say 1%, think you are wrong, think you are underating it somehow



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: nwtrucker

I tend to think due to British air supremacy that reduction of German manufacturing capabilities would have pushed Hitler to come to terms for retaining parts, not all, of Europe. He was willing to pull back from France, I see him keeping most of Eastern Europe and parts of Asia.

The Germans just could not produce enough aircraft once the Battle of Britain was lost. The strategic blunder of having the Luftwaffe bomb London instead of British factories was another huge contributing factor in losing the war.

As Ewok said, Hitler was a retard.



Yeah right from the beginning in Mien Kampf his focus was on Poland and Russia.

He hated Russia as much as he hated the Jews.


France and Belgium where nabbed simply as they got in his way.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: crazyewok
Maybe though Germany MIGHT have been able to grind the UK into a negotiated piece, IE a draw. Maybe, its unlikely though as you said the Royal Navy had pretty much free reign.


The British Navy was the crucial aspect, they had the North Sea bottled up and would have eventually reduced German ports and manufacturing to the point where it further hindered war time production. German had a material issue, with the United States supplying Britain he had no chance.

The combined manufacturing might of both the United States and Britain far outpace anything the Germans hoped to rival, even with slave labor.


Speer admits the slave labour likely hurt the war effort rather than help but he could not get the authorisation to use German women. Meanwhile almost every woman in the UK where signing up. My grandmother was a RAF officer in Churchill's HQ and my other Grandmother worked in the munition factory's. And then you have Russian women actually on the front lines!

What more shocking the fact Germany had to turned its industry to full war production! 90% of there industry was still creating consumer good while only 75% of consumer goods where being made in the UK!



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Speer admits the slave labour likely hurt the war effort rather than help but he could not get the authorisation to use German women. Meanwhile almost every woman in the UK where signing up. My grandmother was a RAF officer in Churchill's HQ and my other Grandmother worked in the munition factory's. And then you have Russian women actually on the front lines!


One more aspect in what would have been an inevitable German loss.

They just did not have the resources, human or material, to defeat their enemies to the point of unconditional surrender.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok


Delayed 2-3 years?? Really? I will be polite here and label that 'best case scenario'. Worst case scenario? Never.

Too many variables here. Lend-Lease on steroids? Not at all as the U.S. is focused on Japan? Goering comes to his senses and returns to bombing airfields, ports and infrastructure instead of London? A huge increase of German air assets due to victory in the east?

I say again, anyone's guess.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

One quote by Churchill at the start of the campaign when he did not know the impact the U boats would have nor how the navy would counter it does not mean anything, only that at that time U-Boats where a concern and the UK needed to find a way to counter them..... and they did.

You accuse me of ignoring you source's but you are ignoring my sources!

I have provided numbers and the source yet you continue to ignore it.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
You accuse me of ignoring you source's but you are ignoring my sources!

I have provided numbers and the source yet you continue to ignore it.


Surprised? He's already been wrong about Sea Lion vis a vis Barbarossa.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok


Delayed 2-3 years?? Really? I will be polite here and label that 'best case scenario'. Worst case scenario? Never.

Too many variables here. Lend-Lease on steroids? Not at all as the U.S. is focused on Japan? Goering comes to his senses and returns to bombing airfields, ports and infrastructure instead of London? A huge increase of German air assets due to victory in the east?

I say again, anyone's guess.



Two to three years not because of anything the UK did but as Speer stated that the Chromium and Tungsten receives Germany had would be gone by 1947. That means no more tanks or artillery. It was actually a genuine and terrifying fear of his. 1947 and the German industry's would collapse. After that Russia or the UK could walk in.

Germany could not have survived a prolonged war, there economy was too fragile.
edit on 8-7-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

The British Navy was the crucial aspect, they had the North Sea bottled up and would have eventually reduced German ports and manufacturing to the point where it further hindered war time production. German had a material issue, with the United States supplying Britain he had no chance


Germany didn't need the sea, they had railways.
Germany were raiders of Allied shipping, they were not a island, they had checkoslavakia, Poland, Austria, northen Europe France to trade with, even Easter Europe, why did they care about the Atlantic Ocean, other than to,stop Britain and Russia being supplied by the US and South America

Germanies ports were for u boats, not cargo. You have it backwards
All German manufacturing was done in the east to keep it from being bombed by The RAF

The Germans were not overhyped, nor underestimated, fortunately.

Churchill knew he was in trouble, thats why he wanted the US in the war as soon as possible
That's basic history



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join