3/11 Did Germany ever have a chance of winning WWII?
\_ Not after both the USA and USSR were involved, and after the USSR
brought the German offensive to a stop. But before that happened,
there were many possibilities that could have led to either victory
or a peace arrangement by Germany. Without the USSR front, against
just USA and Britain it seems like ultimately it still would have
come down to Germany losing the air war, unless the Japan war went
differently.
\_ No. While they had superior technology, US had superior production
power and relatively unlimited raw materials. The Yanks were
cranking out their inferior Sherman tanks at a rate of 10-20X
greater than the superior Panzer tanks, and even though 1 Panzer
tank could take out about 3-4 Sherman tanks, it's the overwhelming
number that wins. Same with P47/P51 vs. ME109s, etc. Germany
attempted cheap/fast production towards the end of the war
like the Volksjager but by then most of the German aces were dead
and the Hitler Youths were too young to know how to fight.
\_ same with the Chinese army. They have inferior weapons
but pushed into Korea with their fearless swarm of men.
\_ HA. The main problem with the Chinese army (if you
mean the Nationalists) wasn't equipment but leadership.
Read "Stilwell and the American Experience in China"
by Tuchman if you care.
\_ Stilwell has a very one-sided view of things.
He is a military man, but had no idea of the
political side of things.
\_ Tuchman's political analysis in the book is
convincing. Chiang Kai Shek was fundamentally
weak.
\_ Chiang Kai Shek has a very weak hand to
play.
\_ If Chiang Kai Shek had been a better
politician and advocated some things
like land reform, he probably would
have beaten Mao. He just refused
to compromise.
\_ fat hopes. CKS power base was
in the coastal cities. He had
tenuous control over just a
small part of China, and that
was before the Japanese invaded
and took that away. And never
underestimate the power of the
idea of communism at that point
in history, especially in a
peasant society like China.
Stilwell wants Chiang to fight
the Japanese. That's would be
a dumb move.
\_ Communism is ill suited for a peasant
society whether in practice or in
ideology. Mao practiced and won with
something else.
\_ it didn't matter. by the
time the peasants realize
that, the war was long over.
\_ CKS had a very small army
reasonably equiped (but far
inferior to the Japanese) under
his control. The rest are
ragtag troops pulled off the
street. There are also
some warlords / generals
fighting under his banner, but
the troops under these people
are loyal to these people, not
to CKS. They are often
from the same province, etc.,
and CKS could not ignore
the views and interests of
these warlords / generals.
Outsiders way overestimated
CKS's power.
\_ Germans had very good weapons. Just not enough.
\_ if they didn't attack Russia, maybe Germany would have
consolidated their conquests.
\_ if the Germans delayed enough, they could have had nuclear
weapons
\_ Frankly, My person take is that if Nazi didn't
1. attack russia, and 2. killing Jews, I really think they
got the chance to win. I don't know if you noticed,
a lot of nuclear bomb scientist are jews escaped from Nazi's
insanity.
\_ Yeah, but without their racist ideas about Jews and
Slavs, it wouldn't have been Nazi Germany, it would
have been something more rational. Something more
rational would not have tried to conquer the world
against overwhelming odds.
\_ if they restricted themselves to a part of Europe
(like Poland and France), Hitler probably would
have had a longer career.
\_ Possibly. The most interesting counterfactual here is whether
Stalin would have attacked had Hitler not. Hitler believed Stalin
was going to come get him once his military machine was up and
running. This was one of his main reasons for going in 1941 and
surprising the hell out of the Red Army. Stalin would have probably
gone after Germany if he perceived weakness. A fully rational
policy on the part of Hitler would have taken all of Europe west
of Poland and east of Great Britain, and stopping there, making it
a very tough nut for Stalin to crack. Russians had a hell of a
time with the Finns, and Germans would have been 10 times worse.
On the other hand, the Russians learned a lot from the Winter War.
However, Hitler had other obsessions (autarky, jews, bolsheviks)
which prevented rational policy. Hitler also wasn't very smart.
-- ilyas
\_ I'm glad Hitler wasn't very smart -- he attacked Russia.
But Stalin isn't that great either.
\_ Stalin was regarded as brilliant by everyone who had
much dealing with him:
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node138.html
\_ Stalin was a stupid peasant. He was, however, unusually
ruthless, which explains his long tenure. When the
Germans invaded in 1941 he disappeared for two weeks. The
common theory is that he had a breakdown, and thought it
was all over. The generals eventually convinced him to
return and head the war effort (by this time the Germans
had overran most of Ukraine and killed or captured many
millions of Red Army soldiers). This link cites a bunch
of russian generals who knew better than to say something
other than what they said. Also, the progressive labor
party's website? Give me a break. Ask a russian historian
instead. -- ilyas
\_ So Ilya, would you attribute Stalingrad simply to the
Russian soldiers solid unwillingness to give in?
\_ Stalingrad was the first time Stalin let Zhukov
handle the operation. Stalin's big personal growth
during WWII consisted of realizing he should let the
professionals do their job (something Hitler never
learned). Russian soldiers did many heroic things
during WWII, even considering the monstrous
compulsion imposed on them by the NKVD.
Nevertheless, Stalingrad was an operational, rather
than a tactical success. People keep talking about
the street fighting, but the key to the operation
was the pincer maneuver which surrounded Paulus.
This was not something the Red Army could have pulled
off in 1941. -- ilyas
\_ I wasn't talking about Stalin as a military man.
I was talking about his human rights record.
\_ frankly, I don't know who is more dumb, Hitler's obsession with
bolsheviks, or our obsessioon with communism for the next 40
years after Hitler is defeated.
\_ Well, both Hitler and the US had legitimate concerns about
communism, since it was a bit of a hegemonising swarm object.
However, Hitler went further (and off the deep end) than
good policy dictated. Whether the US policy of containment
was wise, or there was a better idea is still an open
question. -- ilyas
\_ ilya, you deleted my comment. You bad man! --ann coulter
\_ Not on purpose. -- ilyas
\_ Use motdedit and your stuff won't get deleted (as much).
\_ Dunno about that. I did use motdedit. It still got
deleted. I'm pretty sure motdedit goes in the Kool
Aid category. --ann coulter
\_ maybe, but they lost so whats the point in discussing it now?
\_ some people are interested in topics like this.
\_ c.f. "war on two fronts"
\_ If they didn't attack Russia, maybe they would have
held on to more of Europe.
\_ Hitler went in against a Sicilian when death was on the line.
-geordan
\_ Why so much random censorship on this thread?
\_ Yes. Forget all of the BS about Russia and the second front. If
Japan had managed to put down an invasion force in Hawaii, the
US would never have approved a "Europe first policy."
\_ very interesting thought. |
http://csua.com/feed/