How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided



Message

TOCarroll -> How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/12/2006 1:53:16 AM)

This article appeared in the current copy of "The Armchair General". In a nutshell, the author claimed the Germans could have beaten the allies by following the Medeterranian Strategy espoused by Admiral Raedar (Preferably after shooting Hitler so he couldn't meddle). Domino theory as follows. After France falls, take Malta (quickly) Lybia, Eqypt, French North Afrika, And the entire middle east, subtullly pressuring Turkey to provide cheaper chrome, ect. Loss of the Med. (oddly enough, the authour left Gibraltar alone, maybe he plays WAW [8|]) causes Greece to fall w/o English support. Russia is afraid to antagonize Germany as they are positioned to attack the Cacacus, as well as European Russia. The US is buisy w/Japan. (Again they have kept Hitler from declaring war on Russia or America [>:].

Personally, I think it is logistically impossible [:-]. I've tried it enough, both in WAW and Avalon Hill's Advanced Reich. It does open some interesting options, however. Germany certainly had the soldier & tanks to do it, but there was no way to supply them.

Finally the point.....[>:] Will the new model of WAW have the ability to modify the supply chain at the expense of troops or research??? If the Germans had spend their marks differently (and got rid of a corrupt government that was incapable of doing anything in less than triplicate), who knows?????[:'(]



JanSorensen -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/12/2006 1:57:24 AM)

What do you mean by "modify the supply chain"?



TOCarroll -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/12/2006 2:31:17 AM)

Increase the ability of the Germans to get supply to distant fronts. Possibly air transports instead of bombers and sea transport. I know WaW is an excellent game (I own it, and plan to by A  World Divided), but transport is basically by rail. If the Germans had a huge increase in motor transport or sea transport, the Raeder plan would have been a lot more feasable. In fact, games such as Third Reich put a limit on troops in Africa simply on the (correct) assumption that the German/Italian logistic effort couldn't supply any more. If they chased the Brits out of the Med., the could have supplied a lot more. Also (a very big if) they had a HELL of a lot more (tracked) motor transport, they could have supplied their Barbarossa and Case Blue offensives.

I know this is a BIG what if, but that's what wargames are about. And WaW is and awesome what-if machine [:'(].

PS    Perhaps this belongs in the general discusion (at the top of the forums) The Article is in THE ARMCHAIR GENERAL, current issue, page 70. Well written, if wrong [:D]. THERE IS NOT WAY YOU CAN WIN A WAR AFTER PI**ING OFF 80% OF THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD.....ESPICIALLY WHEN YOU CANT RUN AN EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT OR LISTEN TO CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISM. LISTEN TO YOUR GENERALS, KEEP THE CRANKS OUT OF HIGH PLACES (LIKE FURHER) AND YOU MAY DO OK.



Petiloup -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/12/2006 12:20:52 PM)


I could agree on a title "How Germany could have won the war" but Hitler and his Untermenschen racist views, no way. As you said, would need to kill him first but then would the German army really continue the war? They wouldn't surely make it a World War.

Killing him before Poland and most likely no war.

Before France? then maybe would they still invade France but Russia after that, no way. They all were thinking it was madness.

Stopping the Panzers (Hitler decision) instead of finishing the British by crushing them would have put Dunkerque as a dot on a map instead of a great Allied victory. Take out those many tens of thousands man saved from the equation and Africa could have been a walk in the park.

Then after France? Maybe Churchill would have make peace with the German army, maybe but then on which terms could they agree. Ante bellum? Not likely after Germany crushed France. Status Quo and then England agrees on an almighty foe in Europe, not likey either. Something in between? well knowing Churchill it would need to have a new Prime Minister first.

Then invading Russia and right away alienating it's people by massacring them (Hitler decision) was not very wise either. Not sure to which extent it was done but the Panzers were sometimes greeted like liberators from Communism instead of invaders. Might wonder what would have happened by playing along helping Ukrainians and other minorities to gain independance instead of hanging them.

So no Russian invasion? No declaration of war against the US? if either one then it would end the same way, Germany looses.

If none then that leaves invading England, not a sure thing and if they don't then how long before the British have the bomb after receiving help from the US? Once they have it then it's over, Berlin (maybe a few other cities if needed) is vaporized and Germany surrenders.

If they invade England then it leaves a long Cold War between US/Germany/USSR. Unless there is Hot War then most likely like for the USSR after 50 years or so the control would begin to crumble somewhere. There is so much you can do before people want to control their own destiny as we see in Yugoslavia or even Iraq today.

Germany controlling the World? Russia with a lot more manpower couldn't control is own empire so all this is fun for wargamers but as an alternate reality I don't think it's more then a wild goose chase for our imagination.



teutoburgiensi saltu -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/12/2006 7:28:43 PM)

quote:
Personally, I think it is logistically impossible. I've tried it enough, both in WAW and Avalon Hill's Advanced Reich. It does open some interesting options, however. Germany certainly had the soldier & tanks to do it, but there was no way to supply them.

I’m not sure...were You successfull in implementing the Raeder plan in WAW or not?  Personally I found that it is the only way to successfully play and win as the axis.  In WAW I´ve tried a couple of variants of the nord-african campaign and they were all feasable.  With the help of airforce one can gain contol over the mediteranian and from thereon supplying north africa via transport ships is quite easy.  The only problem is that it does not prevent Russia from attacking sooner or later.  A successfull north african campaign and consequently taking the middle east takes a lot of resouces (both in men an supply units).  This leaves the russian front in Europe relatively weak.    



TOCarroll -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/12/2006 7:59:09 PM)

I argee w/ above (both) Reader plan was feasible, but no Hitler, no war. Yes Hitler, no Raeder plan. Wiping out Russia was integral to Hitler's worldview, and Russia+England+United Stated = DOOM for Germany. A good what-if, however. It is as close to a winning plan as I had in Avalon Hills Advanced Third Reich.



mikwarleo -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/13/2006 5:12:50 AM)

In my understanding Germany stuffed up (whoever you hold responsible for that). Germany could have 'done it' and in many different ways. After brilliant campaigns in Poland and France, with lower losses than everyone expected, Germany was left with sky-high morale and easily the biggest army in the world already in a state of full combat readiness.

For my two cents I would strongly oppose the suggestion that Germany was doomed to fail. After France *they* were the super power. For the USA at this time it was a question of when, not if, England would fall. [http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/britain_40.htm]

I think it is astonishing that Germany (remember, led by Hitler and the Nazi Party) crushed both Poland and France. Poland had a similar sized army though slightly (not greatly) antiquated equipment by comparison to Germany. As a defending force they were, theoretically speaking, both large enough and powerful enough to give Germany a very hard time of it, if not repel them all together. It was a victory of tactics, not of size or composition of the army (though this of course played a role). In France the *Allies* had the advantage both in terms of numbers and equipment. Better tanks for one, and more of them iirc. And don't forget the Allies were *defending* which is always an advantage. Again tactics, that is, leadership, won the day. Like it or not I think you have to admit this was an astounding victory that belonged to Hitler and the Nazis as much as it did to the German armed forces.

To my mind the German failures after this point are due to their bad management of both their diplomacy and their armed forces (again, decide for yourself who is responsible for that, I don't think it's as clear cut as we are often led to believe, remember history is written by the victors and we're all smarter in hindsight... I agree Hitler was a nutcase, but comparable to Stalin imho).

The Battle of Britain was a huge balls-up. Germany's failure to deal with a badly mauled England was the first nail in the coffin but it by no means sealed the deal. That was done at Stalingrad. Which isn't to say it couldn't have happened elsewhere if Barbarossa had gone better, but we'll never know. To my mind if The Battle of Britain/Sealion and/or Barbarossa had gone well, instead of being abject failures, there would be a different world order post WW2 which would include Germany as a Super-Power. If USA was kept out of the war this also seems likely even with historical performances of Sealion and Barbarossa. And yes, we could also speculate over the possibilities in Med/Africa.

Of course, all in all we are pretty much stuck with making sweeping generalisations about massive what-ifs which ultimately leaves us looking like hysterical old women waving their hands about in the air, conceptually speaking.


Allbeit imho. [;)]






Syagrius -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/15/2006 9:23:19 PM)

Not finishing the UK and then attack the USSR was a really THE stupid decision: Adolf turned it in a two front war (something the germans were supposed to avoid at all cost since their defeat in WW I). Even a kid could have seen that. [8|]



smokin_dragon -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/16/2006 7:12:28 AM)

I agree with all of Polonthi's points. There is no way, obviously, that Germany had a chance with Hitler, Goering and Himmler in power. Shoot Himmler and Goering and keep Hitler as a figurehead and Germany's odds of victory greatly improve.



Petiloup -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/16/2006 7:33:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikwarleo
For my two cents I would strongly oppose the suggestion that Germany was doomed to fail.


It was doomed to fail the moment you decide to make mass murdering an official states policy. To win a war is one thing and Nazi Germany could have won a limited war against England but not against Russia the moment your idea is that Slavs are Untermenschen. Hiltler unfortunately could have get away with killing Jews in a monstrous Holocaust as even Russians didn't like them much but they could only have beaten Russia by playing Nationalism against Communism. There were enough minorities including Ukraine who wished to kick Stalin out once and for all but for that you need to play reconciliation not extermination. Hitler was as sick as can be in his hainous way of seeing the race "problem" and he would have always ended up with too many ennemies which would doom Germany to fail.

Now kill Hitler and make this a war against Germany and not Nazi Germany? Can you really believe it would be better when you see how Iraq is going knowing that unless I'm mistaken the USofA is not a dictatorship aimed to rule the world.

The 20st century was showing already India, Indonesia, Philippines wanting to be independant this after South America the century before so can we really consider that Germany could change that in the long run?

Win the war in Europe surely they could have and should have if Russia was left alone but a new world order? less likely I think. A new order in Europe, maybe for a time but would French, British, Belgian, Dutch, Norwegians, Yugoslavs, etc really learn how to love their German new friends? Just look at Yugoslavia and you'll see that it would be quite the contrary. Nobody learn to love an oppressor.

So yes they could win a war but it was still doomed to fail for the Reich of a Thousand Years.

[Quote] I think it is astonishing that Germany (remember, led by Hitler and the Nazi Party) crushed both Poland and France. [/Quote]

Guderian did that not Germany. Just good that his ideas were listened to find a way to win the next war. During the same time Hitler as a WW1 corporal made the mistakes not to believe in assault rifles, heavy bombers, and so on. If you read the memoirs of Speer (their last Production minister) you will see how disorganized Germany was ruled by the Nazi party compared even to the years of WW1. During that war the production was far more efficient than during the beginning of WW2. It's only when Speer began to run things that the industry produced vast quantities of war materials but too late to win. Hitler was so obsessed by power that he on purpose maintain competition between his ruling party to ensure his dominant position. This of course led to a real waste of ressources.

Nazi Germany seemed a well oiled machine... this because of the great propaganda machine they had and the great success as you said of 1939 and 1940 but read any good books and you'll see that they were not ready at all for WW2. Hitler pushed it by obsession not because Germany was ready.

Hitler was a bully with not principle what so ever and the West was weak being scared of a new ugly war so they give way thinking Germany was not really wishing for a war. Unfortunately Hitler wanted one.

Read any book about Nazi party and you'll see they didn't raise into power by competence and organization unless you speak about the one of smashing skulls in some street fight and terrorizing others to oppose them (and propaganda, Goebbels was an innovative leader there). Nazis were ruthless people and it was the time it could work because there was a gap into the power of the government. Unluckily Hitler was the wrong person at the right time in the right place.

[Quote] Like it or not I think you have to admit this was an astounding victory that belonged to Hitler and the Nazis as much as it did to the German armed forces. [/Quote]

Wrong again, Hitler wanted to attack France during Fall 1939 after Poland. Only pressure from it's generals did prevent that. Even after Poland Hitler was not yet in total control of the Army. He still tried to accomodate them sometimes but after France he was a God for the German people and he could do whatever he wanted. Poland and France were possible because of the German army way of organizing itself. It was still a great tool shaped by history. The plan used in France was a variant of Schlieffen plan made before 1914. Guderian was smart enough to see what tanks could do but he was not the only one. De Gaulle was stating the same thing in France but no one quite listen there still believing in the Line Maginot protection.

Now look at the France campaign and the Stop Order issued by Hitler before Dunkerque. Would he have listen to his Generals and the British would have been crushed on the beaches.

Look at Malta as it was the wish of Hitler to stop using his paratroops after Crete. Scared of so many casualties.

Look at Russia as it was the wish of Hitler not to take Moscow in 1941 because Ukraine was needed.

Look at Stalingrad as it was the wish of Hitler to first send the tanks against the Caucasus and let the infantry run to take Stalingrad. After that it was too late but it was still the will of Hitler to let that Army trapped inside Stalingrad instead of falling back and save what he can.

Look at Kursk as this was also Hitler plan delayed for weeks to get his new super tanks while the Russians were entrenching like crazy.

Look at Tunisia as it was also the wish of Hitler to send tens of thousands of men there to keep Tunisia for when they could retake North Africa. Can you imagine those in Sicily and the landing could have been a disaster.

Look at Normandy and it was also the wish of Hitler to think it was just a diversion and the "real" landing whould be in the Pas de Calais.

and we can continue a long time with those examples.

Hitler and the Nazis didn't allow the Army to have great victories by organizing it. Hitler and the Nazis received their aura because the Army could give them victories. Once the army ceased to be remotely independant from Hitler total control it went from disasters to disasters.



popejoy1 -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/16/2006 3:16:39 PM)

Hi!

Could Germany have won World War II? I think it depends upon how you define "victory." If Germany's objective was to merely ensure German dominance over all of Europe except the Soviet Union then I think the answer would be an easy "yes;" however, it seems to me Germany's (by which I mean Hitler's) objective was to control the Soviet Union along a line running roughly from Archangelsk to Astrakhan, so the answer must be, "They could have won if they didn't make any real mistakes."

These objectives entail very different strategies: in the first one, Germany must render permanently subservient both France and Great Britain. Under this strategy, Germany would have focused on bringing England to its knees and ignored the Soviet Union, rather than essentially ignoring Britain after losing the aerial Battle of Britain. In this case, a Mediterranean Strategy aimed at occupying (or at least eliminating access to) British colonies and Mideast oil fields would be in order prior to making a serious attempt to invade and subjugate Britain.

If German strategy is aimed primarily at the Soviet Union, France and Britain must merely be neutralized as meaningful threats, rather than completely subjugated, prior to an attack on the Soviet Union. This avoids the two-front war (that is, significant fighting occurs on one front rather than on two or three fronts) as happened in World War I, but it leaves no margin for error in estimating the weakness of the Western Allies or in the conduct of the war in the East.

In real life, Germany correctly estimated the weakness of France and Britain (one subjugated, the other isolated), but completely underestimated the impact of American entry into the war; in the East, the Germans made enough mistakes (e.g., Leningrad; the First Winter; Stalingrad) that they came up short of victory as they had had chosen to define it.

Pablo



ezzler -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/16/2006 8:54:39 PM)

As I was taught at University there is almost no way for hitler to win.
Once  the Ussr is attacked and a two front war breaks out  Germany is doomed simply by the need to maintain so many garrisons and emergency reserves and allocate production to so many areas { Air / sea / land }.

Even from the start , after France fell , Churchill was confident enough to send troops and tanks to Africa as he {rightly} viewed a successful invasion to be remote due to the overwhelming power of the Royal Navy and the very limited power of the Kriegsmarine.

It has been suggested that Hitler could have won  against the USSR if he made no mistakes but consider 1941.
The Germans managed extremely well with thier limited manpower and equipment and supply capacity to capture huge swathes of territory and huge numbers of prisoners while destroying thousands of tanks and planes.They were as prepared as they were ever going to be , and had suprise on side.

In game terms they played a good round.

The soviets however performed very very badly and allowed these disasters happen throgh poor leadership , lack of response , insane hold and die orders etc ..
Basically the Germans performed about as good as they could ... and the Soviets about as badly as they could.. yet it still wasn't enough.
Once you examine mechanisation , supply , rail networks , spares , manpower , reserves and industrial capacity and oil / mineral wealth it just gets worse for the Whermacht..

Add to this the Commenwealth also didn't perform and made many strategic errors early on so the Germans should have gained an advantage from that.

So could HITLER have won WW2 { and if he never went into Russia and did more sensible military strategies and avoided genocide and avoided his total power in the leader etc he wouldn't have been Hitler , so there would be no war.}

However could the GERMANS have won WW2 { which I guess is the game we all want to play } then that's another question!!
but probably with a similar answer...





Petiloup -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/18/2006 9:30:19 AM)

Still speaking of Hitler Germany or Germany if the question is about WW2 this means winning against the US as well or it's not a World War.

I suppose it shouldn't be a problem to agree that Germany would not had an easy time defeating the US even thinking it could be possible.

Now even think that he would succeed againt Russia. Then in 1945 the US would have still launched The Bomb but this time against Berlin and Hamburg (for example) as it was meant to be. The B-29 and the A-Bomb were developped for Europe but arrived when it was not needed anymore. The German A Bomb now was nowhere to be ready and then what? keep fighting till all German cities are radioactive rubbles?

In a game we can think of the mighty German army but how can you fight against Atomic bombs when you are years behind in making them?

True it will not destroy the army directly but the guys in the army have families back home and how would they keep high morale knowing their loved one are vaporized when they can't do anything about it. Hitler would have keep fighting surely if he survives the first strike in Berlin but then how long can it go like that?

So how could Germany win even a limited war? Invade Britain or they would be the one dropping the bomb. Let Japan make their war alone and then you have the US ready for war, putting political pressure on Germany like they did with Japan, waiting for the Casus Belli.

Only solution would to hope that someone review the schematics of their own bomb and avoid to do that mistake of thinking they needed tons of Uranium to make one. Build one in time to counter the US and establish a pan European hegemony but without Hitler because that madman would have use The Bomb and I'm sure no one would quite doubt about that.

Frankly thinking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki times 10 in Europe is not a scenario, as an European, I would love to think too much about.



06 Maestro -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/20/2006 6:42:59 AM)

Although the A-bombs would certainly have been bad news for Germany, it is not very likely an immediate collapse would have occurred. The production of A-bombs was anything but a mass production operation. A total of 3 bombs were built in the summer of ’45; one for a test and 2 for Japan. At the earliest, it would have been another 2 months for just one more bomb. I can only guess how long it would have taken to achieve production of one per month-perhaps not until mid ’46.
Conventional bombing left 90% of German buildings destroyed or badly damage and yet they were not about to surrender from that damage. Over 3 million civilians were killed in ways much more gruesome than an atomic flash. Unless the Allies got a lucky hit on Hitler, the war would have continued-with ever increasing destruction to Germany and the UK.
Regarding a German victory; it was almost impossible. However, there were many things that could have easily change the balance of forces so that Germany could have attained some kind of a compromise peace-or caused the conflict to become even more devastating for Europe.




Petiloup -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/21/2006 8:57:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
The production of A-bombs was anything but a mass production operation. A total of 3 bombs were built in the summer of ’45; one for a test and 2 for Japan. At the earliest, it would have been another 2 months for just one more bomb.


True enough but no-one was aware of that but the US.

quote:

Over 3 million civilians were killed in ways much more gruesome than an atomic flash.


True also but ask the Japanese about Tokyo bombings and no one will quite know the details. Speak about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and everyone will remember the Atomic cloud at least. Bombings were very effective and a normal one was killing more people all in all than the Bomb but what was different is the way of doing it. Nobody was quite ready to cope with that.

It also refrain Stalin to move against Europe. I think we can't forget the impact this new thing did have on the minds of people. That it was a certain thing that Germany would sue for peace no one can be quite sure of course.

quote:

However, there were many things that could have easily change the balance of forces so that Germany could have attained some kind of a compromise peace-or caused the conflict to become even more devastating for Europe.


Not likely I think looking at how adamant the Allies were about an unconditional surrender. Don't forget that every one was well aware of the concentration camps at that stage and Germany hadn't many friends left in the world. So again if you think alternate history without the Nazi party then maybe but would WW2 then have started?



Heinz Guderian -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/23/2006 10:42:18 AM)

I for one, have always felt had germany limited it objectives to control over Europe(that is central and western Europe), not attacking russia(or at least postpone it for a generation). Then follow Erich Raeders plan. Isolate Britain with a vigorous U-Boat campaign. Raeder felt and in (hindsight) probably correctly that shifting Germanys strategic focus to the Med and Middle east was the proper way to go. In essence remove the british from North Africa, Malta and the Middle East. With Britain out of the Mediterranean(Suez and Malta specifically) and menaced with a well conducted U-boat campaign in the north. Under those circumstances, even retaining control over Gibralter could be problmatic with Axis Ground and Air units Stationed in Morocco. Had Germany not attacked Russia and consolidated its gains in Eruope for at least a generation, they would have been un-touchable. Needless to say, control over the Middle east would have netted Germany *far* greater strategic and economic gains in the long term than control over Russian Lebensraum. I mean look at the current world situation. Russia is a has-been power and everyone and i mean *everyone* obssesses about the middle east these days.  Needless to say they didnt see it that way in 1940.....

Also had Britain been pushed out of the middle east\med. it would have opened up all of Africa for Italy and Germany(ok Germany) to carve out an empire there. Africa held more than enough resources to keep Germany and company happy for a long time. Picking up the Colonial assets of the defeated Powers would have been a nice bonus too.

And yea I do play WaW following this strategy[sm=00000106.gif].  



Petiloup -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/24/2006 3:30:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heinz Guderian

I for one, have always felt had germany limited it objectives to control over Europe(that is central and western Europe), not attacking russia(or at least postpone it for a generation). Then follow Erich Raeders plan. Isolate Britain with a vigorous U-Boat campaign. Raeder felt and in (hindsight) probably correctly that shifting Germanys strategic focus to the Med and Middle east was the proper way to go. In essence remove the british from North Africa, Malta and the Middle East. With Britain out of the Mediterranean(Suez and Malta specifically) and menaced with a well conducted U-boat campaign in the north. Under those circumstances, even retaining control over Gibralter could be problmatic with Axis Ground and Air units Stationed in Morocco. Had Germany not attacked Russia and consolidated its gains in Eruope for at least a generation, they would have been un-touchable. Needless to say, control over the Middle east would have netted Germany *far* greater strategic and economic gains in the long term than control over Russian Lebensraum. I mean look at the current world situation. Russia is a has-been power and everyone and i mean *everyone* obssesses about the middle east these days.  Needless to say they didnt see it that way in 1940.....

Also had Britain been pushed out of the middle east\med. it would have opened up all of Africa for Italy and Germany(ok Germany) to carve out an empire there. Africa held more than enough resources to keep Germany and company happy for a long time. Picking up the Colonial assets of the defeated Powers would have been a nice bonus too.

And yea I do play WaW following this strategy[sm=00000106.gif].  


I would totally agree with you if we take out Hitler from the picture and his short term thinking but without him would it be war?

With him and some more sense then you would have to take into account thinking long term about:

1/ Atomic bombs.
2/ Genocide over Jews, Gipsies, Gays, Handicapped people, any "colored" people, others?
3/ Repression on a global scale with Gestapo style.
4/ Corruption on every level like the Soviets.
5/ Slavery of Africa on a wide scale.
etc.

Nazi had no limits in doing abominations and it should go on for a generation? I tend not to be an optimist for the human race but this goes beyond what I hope could be possible.



Heinz Guderian -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/25/2006 1:31:53 AM)

Im not really quite sure what your points 1-5 are getting at, or even how they are relevant. Original poster asked 'How could Hitler have won the war?' Thats all. If you want. Start a post on the nature and good and evil or the various historical evils commited by empires and conquerers down through the ages. You have lots of source material, truly. And Short-term thinking...not sure what thats supposed to imply either. There is good short term thinking\planning and bad long short term planning thinking. How far ahead you look has little to do with it. Its the quality and soundness of your plans and actions that matters. The original post had nothing on removeing Hitler either, that is a non-starter and also is not really all that relevant. Since WW2 *was* started by Hitler and his party, its only proper to assume(in our alternate-outcone scencarios) that he does live. That simply moves what is a talk about possible Strategic outcomes to a more... political one. You may as well speculate about Stalin slipping in the shower on a bar of soap and breaking his neck or getting run over by a tank thats backing up and didnt see him standing there haveing a smoke. Fact is there were people in the Military and party that opposed attacking Russia, there were those that felt the Raeder Plan was the best way to go, some argued for massive investement in the U-Boat effort and so on. However these indiviuals did not have the final word, and there advice often went un-heeded. How would things have turned out had that not been the case? Its a valid and interesting question, which i suspect is why he posited in the 1st place. One could make up a large laundry list of evils that came out of OUR Post WW2 history and the resultant cold war, but what would be point? What happened...happened. When WaWing I always use the 'Go south' strategy myself as it secures the soft-underbelly and turns the med. into an axis lake. Keeping the british\americans from being able to land in North Africa takes an enourmous amout of pressure of me and simplifies the defence or 'Fortress Europe' greatly(ableit at the cost of a longer defensie line), but well worth the cost. In fact if the game didnt force me too, I wouldnt even attack Russia either. I always mange to end up in control of the Middle East-North Africa with while shutting down the allies in the Med. I know a lot of the players here hate that strategy, but thats more because they want a game that recreates WW2 , the idea of useing sensible rational stragetic planning to actually effect a different outcome honks a lot of the people here off[:)]



Petiloup -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/25/2006 1:29:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heinz Guderian
Im not really quite sure what your points 1-5 are getting at, or even how they are relevant. Original poster asked 'How could Hitler have won the war?' Thats all.



I always mange to end up in control of the Middle East-North Africa with while shutting down the allies in the Med. I know a lot of the players here hate that strategy, but thats more because they want a game that recreates WW2 , the idea of useing sensible rational stragetic planning to actually effect a different outcome honks a lot of the people here off[:)]


I cut your message in two to try to explain myself.

As some did answer above you have to make a distinction between 'How could Hitler have won the war?' or 'How could Germany have won the war?'

You speak about using "sensible rational strategic planning" and I totally agree with you as most, I think, that Germany did had a very good chance of doing far better if doing exactly that. I must concede this to you.

Now if you speak about Hitler then there are many facts to point that he was incapable of such "sensible rational strategic planning" and therefore you have to take this into account to see if Hitler could have won the war. Hitler being Hitler then you have to agree he couldn't.

Then some would wonder if the victory achieved could last one generation as mentioned in another message and again I think with Germany and decent leaders it could be even if it would prove difficult but with Hitler and his Nazi regime I don't think so, as there is so much you can do with terror to control your people. Look in history and every would be dictator who tried this approach ended loosing everything at the end or their "empire" would dissolve at their death anyway.

That's all I wanted to say.



Timmeh -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/25/2006 8:06:18 PM)

I have both an Italian and a French WWII era rifle. both are in mint condition, never fired and only dropped once [;)]



Petiloup -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (8/28/2006 5:40:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Timmeh

I have both an Italian and a French WWII era rifle. both are in mint condition, never fired and only dropped once [;)]


Pay attention with those, there surely still are bullets inside [:D]



christian brown -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (9/14/2006 10:17:49 AM)

Getting back to the header, this is a game.  As such, both sides must have a chance to win somehow for it to be fun for all players.  Germany does not have to conquer the World, nor does it have to focus on Russia.  As for the logistical problems originally referred to: controlling the Med/Middle East/Afirca/India requires a HUGE investment in transports and supplies to be viable.  Since in AWD, you don´t really know when (unless you invest heavily in spies against Russia) the USSR will unfreeze.  It´s a risk to take on the Med area because you usually focus solely on that to the detriment of the Eastern Front, but you can win this game by doing so if Japan performs very well.  There are Strategic points in Egypt and India (as well as the factories there) that all count toward the AV.  Remember the premise of the AV is simply to set a sort of victory marker whereby the Allies would concede and make peace, not that they actually acknowledge defeat.....



Petiloup -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (9/22/2006 12:14:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: christian brown

Getting back to the header, this is a game.  As such, both sides must have a chance to win somehow for it to be fun for all players. 


Too make it fun for all players in one thing but once you do a game on an historical event you can't allow yourself to change history for play balance. In the case of WW2 it's of course difficult to estimate if Russia would have surrender even loosing Leningrad and Moscow. Would England surrender if Cairo and India falls? surely not. Would the US throw the towel if loosing Hawai? don't think so either.

Doing an Auto Victory make sense in WAW/AWD to push the Allies to try to contain the Axis but it should be in 2 phase I believe. 1 AV against Russia and 1 against the Allies with different conditions.

About letting the Axis win I think it would be more about seeing if they can loose less badly than in reality. Put a Victory calculation based on the time of defeat and concede that the Axis player did better than in reality which could be a victory of a sort.

True we can always say that Germany could have done better if organizing her industry since the start of the war, doing research more efficiently, killing Hitler, and so on as alternate history but then why not doing the same for Russia as Stalin doesn't do the Purge against his army, he build strong defenses at his border with the Axis, and so on. Or say France learn from Poland and organize better defenses against the Blitzkrieg.

This is the problem doing a WW2 global game, or you stick to history and the Axis is doomed or you allow some alternate history but it should go both ways.



WanderingHead -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (9/22/2006 7:39:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Polonthi
Doing an Auto Victory make sense in WAW/AWD to push the Allies to try to contain the Axis but it should be in 2 phase I believe. 1 AV against Russia and 1 against the Allies with different conditions.


That is actually a pretty interesting idea.

What could be done for a "No AV" setup is create surrender conditions for the Allied powers, rather than have them fight til the bitter bitter end.

Given the political rules, this could be implemented pretty well with surrenders similar to Vichy ... some Russian territories go German, some Russian territories become neutral (with freetrade then representing the trade/economic/reparations portions of any surrender agreement).

Given the very real possibility of Russian government collapse, this does not seem at all unreasonable.

Similarly, if England fell it is quite possible the Commonwealth (at least India) would not have kept fighting, unless Japan forced it. If I were to implement it, I might separate India from Australia, and have India go balanced neutral (hence feeding the Japanese factories with resources, if they can form a transport link, but leaving some motivation for Japan to attack India).

However, if such were implemented ONLY for Russia, this would be a strong encouragement for Germany to initiate early hostilities against Russia, in order to knock out the bear at the back door while it is still weak. This is something some testers have been strongly advocating for, a good motivation for an early attack against Russia, without actually forcing it.

If the code used to implement Vichy were flexible and mod-able, such that one could create similar rules for other nationalities, then this could be done by a modder. Unfortunately, I think that most of the Vichy rules are hard coded.

Just FYI - I am one of the testers, generally silent on this public board however.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (9/22/2006 10:03:08 PM)

quote:

True we can always say that Germany could have done better if organizing her industry since the start of the war, doing research more efficiently, killing Hitler, and so on as alternate history but then why not doing the same for Russia as Stalin doesn't do the Purge against his army, he build strong defenses at his border with the Axis, and so on. Or say France learn from Poland and organize better defenses against the Blitzkrieg.

This is the problem doing a WW2 global game, or you stick to history and the Axis is doomed or you allow some alternate history but it should go both ways.


I've been trying to make this very point for some time now. History should be matched with history, but breaking history (especially radically breaking history) should result in BOTH sides having a lot more freedom. I have yet to understand why people can make tons of assumptions of how Germany can have improved over historical but are content to leave the Allies without the same benefits.

Currently though, the Allies are still pretty much confined to history regardless of German actions (within certain constraints). Perhaps that might change depending on how things shake out, but there is always a prevailing feeling amongst gamers to allow the Germans and Japanese more free reign (for better or worse).



Forwarn45 -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (9/22/2006 10:30:19 PM)

I agree with the last comments. Both sides could have done things differently from a planning perspective. Indeed, hindsight should be even more helpful from the standpoint of the Allies at the beginning of the war - the French and the British. Employing a different plan and simply responding differently to German moves could have made a big difference in itself! The allied "Dyle plan" played right into the German's hands -- after the Germans changed their plan (with Hitler's endorsement!) and decided to strike through the Ardennes. And of course French strategic doctrine could have been improved through concentration of its many tanks.

The fact that the Soviet regime stood strong despite the huge defeats in '41 and '42 is something we know now, but might have surprised us if we were just looking at history as it stood at the time. In WWI, the Germans never bested the French but domestic pressure in Russia and poor military performance finally toppled the Czarist regime leading to a peace ceding enormous territory to the Germans! The more recent Winter War with Finland also left serious questions about the ability of the Red Army to fight effectively.

Moreover, it is interesting how close the war actually was based on the campaigns Germany actually waged. Soviet reserves and equipment were not limitless. They were enough given the strategic decisions made by both sides, but I don't think that was a forgone conclusion at the outset. Every regime or government has its limits in terms of maintaining strength and cohesiveness! That's not to say there would not be continued violence or partisans (look at Iraq today), but Stalin and the Soviet government were not invincible. When things look the worst, people start to look for ways out of the situation that work for them. This might lead to a regime being toppled or it might lead to those running the regime to start to look for a way out (of the war or the government).

I guess what I'm saying is: (1) it's interesting to employ hindsight but important to think about the parameters under which decision-makers were thinking at the time; and (2) the war as it played out in Europe was an amazingly close (and scary) thing!



Petiloup -> RE: How Hitler Could Have Won WW2 (9/26/2006 12:35:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

quote:

Currently though, the Allies are still pretty much confined to history regardless of German actions (within certain constraints). Perhaps that might change depending on how things shake out, but there is always a prevailing feeling amongst gamers to allow the Germans and Japanese more free reign (for better or worse).


I agree that it's not normal to look only at Germany and Japan to change history. Stalin wanted to get control of the Dardanelles and the Balkans. The latest was allied with Hitler but would Hitler go West to invade the UK couldn't Stalin used the momentum to send his troops to grab control of Turkey using the fact that Hitler couldn't do anything about it?

Would a Russia at peace help Mao a lot more if Japan did a full push against China?

Those are also "what if" and of course could prove very annoying to deal with for the Axis but with the Politics system it should be enable to do so by risking to delay the US entry or even Russia entry against Germany. Trading time against strategic interest should be a choice at least for Communist Russia.

The only one I'll gladly limit are the Democracies in terms of invading other countries and maybe in 1939 and 1940 against Germany to give her a chance or you'll see the French army attacking Germany during the Poland campaign and all should be over soon.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875