the germans underestimating the italian navy comment.......

Yea, they did underestimate them. The Italian navy was well equipped and capable. The command of the Regia Marina was made subservient to the Germans who never utilized it or took advantage of its capabilities. The Italians were big fans of seizing Malta and were continually overruled.

Even with all those limitations the Italian Navy briefly gained naval superiority.

The Regia Marina was a potent force that spent most of the war in harbour.

With the capture of Malta it would have been very difficult for the Royal Navy to stop shipments to Northern Africa, or more accurately, to have slowly decimated the Italian merchant marine which ultimately led to supply shortages in North Africa.

They still would have had to deal with a lack of port infrastructure but it would have been a solid advantage.

If the Italians had completed their aircraft carriers the Italian navy would have been an even more potent force.

There is one thing every body keeps dancing around when it comes to Germany winning the war. DUNKIRK. If hitler forces a surrender there instead of letting them escape across the channel then BOOM war over. Then They attack the Soviet Union. Churchill wanted to take the German military and attack them after the war anyway. And if that happens there is no way the US sides with Stalin. Just won't happen without UK. A lot of people forget the role the British played in the pacific as well around Australia. Britain and their resources suddenly belong to Germany then the axis powere are fighting them selves. All that needs to happen is Japan taking the Philippines and the US is all alone out on a limb at Pearl Harbor. Game over. Especially had the fleet been destroyed as planned.

Britain was not going to surrender even if there had been no rescue from Dunkirk.

(06-06-2014 12:51 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Britain was not going to surrender even if there had been no rescue from Dunkirk.

Capture their expeditionary force and they have nothing left that early in the war. Hit them with the one two of capturing that force and then the African campaign and concentrate all your efforts into destroying the RAF and its a pretty easy decision, be invaded by air, or give up your colony's and territories. Which does Britan do? That I don't know. That early in the war it's hard to say what kind of effect that would have had.

(06-06-2014 01:01 AM)stAtecamera13 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 12:51 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Britain was not going to surrender even if there had been no rescue from Dunkirk.

Capture their expeditionary force and they have nothing left that early in the war. Hit them with the one two of capturing that force and then the African campaign and concentrate all your efforts into destroying the RAF and its a pretty easy decision, be invaded by air, or give up your colony's and territories. Which does Britan do? That I don't know. That early in the war it's hard to say what kind of effect that would have had.

I think you may be understanding the British a bit. I know a few people over there...they would never surrender to anyone. They'd arm civilians and fight soldiers hand to hand in the streets if they had to. This is a government that managed to convince a decent portion of its London population to send their kids off to live with complete strangers for a few months to keep them safe from German bombs.

Many forget that the British spent most of the war taking in refugees. They had tons of Jews who escaped continental Europe into England, a bunch of French made it over anticipating a German invasion, and they had practically the entire school children population of the Channel Islands relocate to the country for the entire war. There wasn't a way on planet earth they'd give up...especially knowing that the US and Canada would never force them to fight on their own.

(06-06-2014 09:57 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 01:01 AM)stAtecamera13 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 12:51 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Britain was not going to surrender even if there had been no rescue from Dunkirk.

Capture their expeditionary force and they have nothing left that early in the war. Hit them with the one two of capturing that force and then the African campaign and concentrate all your efforts into destroying the RAF and its a pretty easy decision, be invaded by air, or give up your colony's and territories. Which does Britan do? That I don't know. That early in the war it's hard to say what kind of effect that would have had.

I think you may be understanding the British a bit. I know a few people over there...they would never surrender to anyone. They'd arm civilians and fight soldiers hand to hand in the streets if they had to. This is a government that managed to convince a decent portion of its London population to send their kids off to live with complete strangers for a few months to keep them safe from German bombs.

Many forget that the British spent most of the war taking in refugees. They had tons of Jews who escaped continental Europe into England, a bunch of French made it over anticipating a German invasion, and they had practically the entire school children population of the Channel Islands relocate to the country for the entire war. There wasn't a way on planet earth they'd give up...especially knowing that the US and Canada would never force them to fight on their own.

I agree with this assessment. Hitler was correct in letting the Brits escape at Dunkirk because it provided valuable time to consolidate assets an move his front westward. Capture the British forces and then trying to ransom a negotiated peace out of Churchill seem highly improbable. Then what does Hilter do? Killing them would definitely bring the US and Canada in those forces would land in France unopposed.

(06-06-2014 10:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:57 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 01:01 AM)stAtecamera13 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 12:51 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Britain was not going to surrender even if there had been no rescue from Dunkirk.

Capture their expeditionary force and they have nothing left that early in the war. Hit them with the one two of capturing that force and then the African campaign and concentrate all your efforts into destroying the RAF and its a pretty easy decision, be invaded by air, or give up your colony's and territories. Which does Britan do? That I don't know. That early in the war it's hard to say what kind of effect that would have had.

I think you may be understanding the British a bit. I know a few people over there...they would never surrender to anyone. They'd arm civilians and fight soldiers hand to hand in the streets if they had to. This is a government that managed to convince a decent portion of its London population to send their kids off to live with complete strangers for a few months to keep them safe from German bombs.

Many forget that the British spent most of the war taking in refugees. They had tons of Jews who escaped continental Europe into England, a bunch of French made it over anticipating a German invasion, and they had practically the entire school children population of the Channel Islands relocate to the country for the entire war. There wasn't a way on planet earth they'd give up...especially knowing that the US and Canada would never force them to fight on their own.

I agree with this assessment. Hitler was correct in letting the Brits escape at Dunkirk because it provided valuable time to consolidate assets an move his front westward. Capture the British forces and then trying to ransom a negotiated peace out of Churchill seem highly improbable. Then what does Hilter do? Killing them would definitely bring the US and Canada in those forces would land in France unopposed.

Yep, if Hitler captures the forces or even decimates them at Dunkirk, the result is an even more determined British people who would still hold strong, and it probably ends up provoking the US into entering the war, and Hitler did not want to mess with the US Army that early in the game. Not without having time to establish his defensive fronts in France.

History dictates that you don't mess with the British...especially on their own soil.

Ironically, if Hitler had decided to capture and Dunkirk, the US Probably enters the war early, and Pearl Harbor may not have happened because we would be on a more heightened alert, and probably wouldn't have as large a fleet stationed there.

The best chance for Hitler to knock Britain out of the war was to force a change of government by dramatically altering the civilian situation on the British home front. Starving them out with an all out submarine campaign was their best chance. The mistake was concentrating only on merchant vessels and not encouraging U-boat commanders to pick off Royal Navy assets when possible. The US Pacific submarine campaign is one of the most underestimated factors in our defeat of Japan.

The Luftwaffe (read Goering) also hampered the efforts to cut vital supply lines by refusing airborne assets to the Kriegsmarine and refusing to improve upon naval patrol aircraft and bombers.

The Nazis in general didn't take British involvement against them seriously, and as soon as Operation Barbarossa got rolling Britain became a side show to them. The Kriegsmarine was the only branch of the Wehrmacht that took Britain seriously and they were always the red-headed step-child of Nazi Germany.

As soon as the United States entered the war everything leading to eventual Nazi defeat was academic. The Soviets wouldn't have been able to concentrate on weapons production with US supplies and trucks to keep their forces moving. The British wouldn't have been able to mount a serious invasion of Continental Europe with just Commonwealth forces alone.

After Pearl Harbor, had Britain already been knocked out of the war, Roosevelt would have been unable to get the US in the war against Hitler.

I believe that Germany could have had a slim chance at defeating the Brits had they possessed the capability of invading England shortly after Dunkirk. When the British Expeditionary Force evacuated they left the majority of their heavy weapons and transports behind, and it would be months until they were able to reequip their forces. The situation was so dire during Dunkirk that there was serious discussion within the British government of seeking a conditional surrender, and plans were being made to move the royal family and government to exile in Canada. Churchill feared the possibility of the Germans invading so much he desperately wanted the French to keep fighting as long as possible, even proposing a union between the two countries.

Quote:It's interesting they got so close (or got in) to Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, without taking any of them.

One of the big reasons for the early success of the Nazis against the Soviets was the fact that Stalin also faced a two front war. Early on the Soviets had to keep a significant portion of their army posted in the far east to protect against the threat the Japanese posed to them there. The memories of the Tsarist forces defeat at the hands of the Japanese was still fairly fresh, so despite having a neutrality pact with Japan there was a significant threat. Stalin wanted to avoid a two front war so much that despite pressure from Roosevelt and Churchill to join the fight against the Japanese he would only agree to do so after Germany surrendered.
When the Soviet spy in Tokyo, Richard Sorge, was able to provide the intel that the Japanese had no plans to attack Russia in 1941 it allowed Stalin to move close to 20 divisions and significant tanks and aircraft from the defense of Siberia to the German front. That, as much as the crippling weather, was the turning point for the Nazis on the Eastern Front.

The Germans would have done well to follow the Romanian lead and make the war with the Soviets very limited in nature. The massive victory that Barborossa was may have left the Soviets some opportunity to settle out.

(06-04-2014 04:34 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Two reasons why the Axis ultimately lost: Germany invaded Russia, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Russia and Germany had an untrusted alliance and would've stayed that way, and Japan should've never brought the US into the war.

I agree. Then, of course, you might have to more narrowly define "winning WWII".

Without Pearl Harbor, would the US have gone to war to keep Japan from dominating China or Korea? If we couldn't muster the will to enter the war against Germany, even after France fell, how could we expect that?

And if Hitler had simply stopped at the English Channel, the Brits would not have had the resources to force Germany to cede its gains on the continent. He might not have been able to invade England, but neither would England have been able to invade western Europe.

But my question would be, if Hitler hadn't treacherously broken his pact with Stalin, how long would it have been before Stalin treacherously broke his pact with Hitler? The only thing, IMO, that might have prevented that was if Russia was afraid of a threat on its own Eastern Front, namely a Japan that had been allowed to conquer China and its massive resources.

Sooner or later, that conflict would have erupted. Could Hitler have held onto his gains in western Europe if he was engaged in all out war with Russia, but no credible threat from England or the US? We might well have been content to let them all blow each other to smithereens, while we made a fortune selling them the arms with which to do it.

Hitler had a good thing going with Russia and blew it. Germany developed their tanks in
association with Russia, in Russia, when they could not have them. Gave Russia 51% of
Poland, was getting raw materials and products from Russia. He should have settled what
ever else he wanted to before taking on Russia.

(06-23-2014 05:16 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  He should have settled what
ever else he wanted to before taking on Russia.

Because Stalin was going to wait for Hitler to finish off Britain before he attacked the Nazi's himself?

If Hitler could have enticed Spain to fight, a (competent) Axis of Germany, Italy and Spain could have held Western Europe without much trouble. A strong, militarily capable Spain could have made the Straits of Gibraltar impassable and could have engaged in a pincer movement with Italy to claim France, freeing the stronger Germany to fight in eastern Europe and be a foil to Soviet advancement.

With a strong Spain, the Axis could have easily reached from Portugal to Romania, Sicily to Denmark.

Actually, in this case there would probably be no more Portugal, as it would be part of Spain, France would probably still be around in some Vichy-esque capacity, Belgium, the Netherlands, and eastern Europe would be absorbed into a Greater Germany, and Italy would have an eastern Adriatic Sea coast from Trieste to Crete.

If Spain had the capacity to, I think what you're saying is plausible.

However, Spain was probably one of the weakest military and economic entities in Europe at the time. In terms of military capability and economic resilience they were probably somewhere around Hungary or Bulgaria and well below Romania or Finland. Spain's major problem is that she had just waged a costly civil war, and her economic output was nearly non-existent.

In that situation, I doubt they could seal off the Mediterranean. In fact, they would most likely find themselves as the third front where German forces would be tied up.

Still, if the Spanish were even as competent, or incompetent, as the Italians they may have been able to do as you've suggested and that probably could have significantly influenced the outcome of the war.

(06-23-2014 05:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 05:16 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  He should have settled what
ever else he wanted to before taking on Russia.

Because Stalin was going to wait for Hitler to finish off Britain before he attacked the Nazi's himself?

Stalin would never have attacked Hitler if Germany had not invaded. Stalin was afraid of Hitler. Besides, Hitler had given Stalin 51% of Poland and Stalin took it over under the guise of preventing Hitler from taking all of it over to the world. Stalin, even after Germany attacked, went into a great state of depression for a week. Stalin knew he had killed his best generals before the war just to hold onto power.

(06-28-2014 08:21 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 05:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 05:16 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  He should have settled what
ever else he wanted to before taking on Russia.

Because Stalin was going to wait for Hitler to finish off Britain before he attacked the Nazi's himself?

Stalin would never have attacked Hitler if Germany had not invaded. Stalin was afraid of Hitler. Besides, Hitler had given Stalin 51% of Poland and Stalin took it over under the guise of preventing Hitler from taking all of it over to the world. Stalin, even after Germany attacked, went into a great state of depression for a week. Stalin knew he had killed his best generals before the war just to hold onto power.

Historians disagree on when Stalin planned to attack Germany but they generally agree he was making preparations to do so at some point in the first half of the 1940's; and he was most certainly not "scared" of Hitler. He even interfered with the KPD from cooperating with the SPD from forming an anti-Nazi coalition in the Reichstag in '33.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offe...ontroversy

Playing the what if game. What if Germany had gone strictly east and concentrated all its efforts on Russia. Forget France and England, neither country would've lifted a finger to help Russia. You'd have to think that the Germans would've conquered Russia and with those resources then turn their eyes on the West.