The Nazis

0verlord44

Goalkeeper
Theres so many tiny 'what if' moments in the 20th century.
We were taught very little about the world wars at school. More about the bolsheviks, and nothing about the cold war or the space race!
 

Aituk7

Winger
Theres so many tiny 'what if' moments in the 20th century.
We were taught very little about the world wars at school. More about the bolsheviks, and nothing about the cold war or the space race!
The close calls with nuclear weapons have been unbelievable.

List of nuclear close calls - Wikipedia

As is the rise of the far-Left. Both sides are equally dangerous.

Don't forget, the Nazi's were "National Socialists". Communism and Socialism is just as dangerous as far-Right ideologies.
Communism is, I don't think socialism per se is... socialism means an awful lot of different things, similar to capitalism.

The rise of the far left is at times arguably more dangerous... because people have no problem calling out nazi's for their nonsense but often struggle with equally violent left wing phenomena
 
Last edited:

Lord Potts

Winger
Provoking a war against the USA and opening a second front against the USSR weren't great moves. As a competent military strategist would have probably advised against any of this in the first place it's arguable that the Nazi's would not have a war to fight in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Scotty

Winger
Obsolete before it was even manufactured. Another of Hitler's egomaniacal delusions which wasted resources and man power. Same thing for his wunderwaffens. The lack of a strategic heavy bomber, the attempts to turn jet fighters into Jabos, over engineered tanks when they had access to the best and most easily manufactured tank in the T34 which could have been vastly upgraded with German technical skill, the intrigues and power struggles between party leaders .

For me there's 3 issues which stopped the Nazi's.
1. Failure to knock out/force the surrender of British Empire by late 1940. Not annihilating the BEF in France, followed by the decision to change targets from air bases to cities during the Battle of Britain meant that Britain remained a thorn in Germany's side. It's arguable about whether a sea borne invasion could have happened given the Royal Navy's superiority but the lack of air supremacy made it impossible. Had Britain been knocked out of the war, huge amounts of raw materials from the Empire would likely have flowed into the Reich under any surrender agreement, the oil fields of the middle east would've been under German control and Hitler's Western flank would have been the secured. The knock on effect would have seen the US become even more isolationist and enabled Operation Barbarrossa to take place earlier in 1941, as was planned, due to no campaign in the Balkans and Greece. It might also have seen Spain throw it's hand in with the Axis.
2. Failure to recruit/conscript volunteers at the earliest opportunity from former Soviet republics to fight against the Soviet Union. The Germans were greeted as liberators when they arrived in the western republics of the USSR but Nazi doctrine and the repression it instigated meant that millions of potential recruits were lost who could have provided much need manpower from the very earliest days of Barbarrossa. Instead many who experienced the horror of Nazi rule turned against them becoming partisans. This pool of anti-bolsheviks, along with others from western countries, were only really drawn upon after it was too late. Arguably if they'd been recruited earlier, and Hitler hadn't split his forces to seize the Caucasus oil fields, Moscow would have fell by autumn 1941 due to the earlier timetable for Barbarrossa if point 1 occurred.
3. Germany's failure to go onto an all out war footing after the fall of Poland. German generals had a number of nasty surprises about the quality of their equipment, their lack of motorised transport and the needs of supply during the Polish campaign and this was reinforced during the Battle of France. German tanks and aircraft were found to be lacking when faced with the best the enemy could field and German industry wasn't geared nearly enough to produce the things needed to change this. Britain went straight onto an all out war footing, while German manufacturing didn't.

There's a lot more to it but that'd be my top 3
a german (over-engineered) t-34 is just a panther - the germans just would'nt or could'nt help themselves - they'll over-enginner the shit out of the t-34

1. Sealion is never happening without a major change in priorities, and if you concentrate on the naval requirements to Sealion you will lack the resources to take out France - and without a Sealion you'll never get GB to agree to a peace settlement that turns it into a vassal state of Germany. And Barbarossa start date was linked to the drying out of the spring mud, you might bring it forward by a couple of weeks if you ignore Yugoslavia but not enough to really change of the outcome in 41

2. as i mentioned earlier in the thread - good luck with that. The germans had to pillage to feed their own troops and now you want to conscript all these volunteers that you cant feed. At best you can use them as meatshields but I'm not sure OKW would be comfortable arming thousands of possible turncoats

3. this one i do agree with - go to a war footing straight away. Concentrate on equipment types and dont spread yourself thin with multiple designs (ie panzer iv should be your aim, use it for all the armoured roles and ignore the panther, tiger, etc)

although i'm not how much more motorised the germans could go when they were constrained by oil supplies
 
Last edited:
If Hitler had kept it to one front we would have been screwed tbh. Because he decided to go East after Dunkirk it gave us a chance to recover and get some aid off the yanks.
 
If Adolf hadn't been champing at the bit and had held off till 41/42 like the General staff were planning then there's a good chance they could have held everything between the channel and the Urals.
An airforce with no strategic assets, only tactical bombers, was always going to have problems as the war wore on.
The lack of naval power in 39 meant they could be fairly easily cut off from overseas supplies - albeit they learned a lot from WW1 and almost crippled us.

His biggest mistakes were a) allowing himself to divert men and resources to Greece after the Italians buggered that up, delaying the Russian offensive and b) declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor.

The second one is probably the most telling, as there was a strong desire to leave the Germans alone and stick to the Japanese - even after his declaration.
 

Scotty

Winger
If Adolf hadn't been champing at the bit and had held off till 41/42 like the General staff were planning then there's a good chance they could have held everything between the channel and the Urals.
An airforce with no strategic assets, only tactical bombers, was always going to have problems as the war wore on.
The lack of naval power in 39 meant they could be fairly easily cut off from overseas supplies - albeit they learned a lot from WW1 and almost crippled us.

His biggest mistakes were a) allowing himself to divert men and resources to Greece after the Italians buggered that up, delaying the Russian offensive and b) declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor.

The second one is probably the most telling, as there was a strong desire to leave the Germans alone and stick to the Japanese - even after his declaration.

he would have ran out of all his stolen gold if he'd waited til 42 - read Tooze's 'Wages of Destruction' for more details

agreed on the tac/strategic air - however if he switches priorities does he have enough tac air to get the job done in the west

agreed

it was'nt the italians in Greece that buggered him up - it was the Yugoslavians flipping immediately after the Pact of Steel has been signed - although the delay was only a month, and the spring mud had'nt dried anyway, nor were his allies really ready for the May start

whether he declared on the US or not was pretty much immaterial by then, they were in an undeclared war with the US from early 41 anyway - with the US having a shoot on sight policy. And you can only funnel so much extra manpower/equipment to the Pacific anyway due to shipping capacity, etc so even with a Japan first the UK is still going to get a load of help
 

Good Bloke Fairly

Goalkeeper
:lol::lol::lol:


Yeah, the germans probably would have won the battle of britain, we were on our last few planes and airfields when luckily churchill ordered a bombing raid on berlin.

Hitler took a massive tantrum at this and switched the air targets from the raf bases to heavy industrial cities... starting the blitz but giving us a chance to regroup our airfields and fix our planes.

It was very touch and go until then.
The whole Enigma program aspect of the Battle of Britain is fascinating. Allowing them to level Coventry so they wouldn't know we'd cracked their code.
 

Az*

Striker
a german (over-engineered) t-34 is just a panther - the germans just would'nt or could'nt help themselves - they'll over-enginner the shit out of the t-34

1. Sealion is never happening without a major change in priorities, and if you concentrate on the naval requirements to Sealion you will lack the resources to take out France - and without a Sealion you'll never get GB to agree to a peace settlement that turns it into a vassal state of Germany. And Barbarossa start date was linked to the drying out of the spring mud, you might bring it forward by a couple of weeks if you ignore Yugoslavia but not enough to really change of the outcome in 41

2. as i mentioned earlier in the thread - good luck with that. The germans had to pillage to feed their own troops and now you want to conscript all these volunteers that you cant feed. At best you can use them as meatshields but I'm not sure OKW would be comfortable arming thousands of possible turncoats

3. this one i do agree with - go to a war footing straight away. Concentrate on equipment types and dont spread yourself thin with multiple designs (ie panzer iv should be your aim, use it for all the armoured roles and ignore the panther, tiger, etc)

although i'm not how much more motorised the germans could go when they were constrained by oil supplies
I love the Panther but you’re correct. P4 F2 onwards were more than enough. Could have even designated the Panther as a heavy later on, it’s frontal armour and gun were more than enough for most things it faced.
P4, Stugs and the Hetzer would have been the best choice for AFV’s imo. Hetzer was unbelievably cheap and powerful and had a tiny profile, punches well above its weight.

Instead time, money and valuable resources were wasted on KT’s, JagD tigers/panthers, Elephants and god knows what other ridiculous shit(Brumbar? Ffs) Some are iconic and were extremely powerful, but ultimately, were a waste.

The P3 and P4 were the work horses of the Wehrmacht but are rarely talked about because of the Tiger etc.

The Russians knew the score, nearly every tank using the same hull design and wide tracks. Still the best all round tank in ww2 for me was the T34, so simple yet so effective.
 
As I said, extremes are dangerous. A perfectly reasonable ideology can soon turn dangerous when taken to the extreme.

Hitler wasn't "evil", he thought he was saving the world.
That's not my point. My point is that the Nazis weren't socialist, although they used the word socialist in their name, in the same way that North Korea isn't a democracy, even though it calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
 

Richy Fingers

Full Back
That's not my point. My point is that the Nazis weren't socialist, although they used the word socialist in their name, in the same way that North Korea isn't a democracy, even though it calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
"The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class conflict, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organization"

Nazism - Wikipedia

It might not fit your definition of Socialism, but they fell for it hook, line and sinker.
 
Last edited:
"The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class conflict, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organization"

Nazism - Wikipedia
So, a redefinition of "socialism" ergo not socialism in its original form.

Were the Nazis Socialists?
 

Top