[pugsville]

How was Dunkirk a betrayal?The Allied armies had been defeated, there was nothing to be achieved by the British Army staying in France there was some attempt to land more troops elsewhere in France, but the Germans now had superior resources.

The German success in the early Battle of Atlantic was based on a pre-war trained elite crews and bad British tactics. As the British adapted and developed better tactics and technology the Germans were facing a harder struggle. It wasnt just a factor of more German resources leading to better results.

The Italian Navy was not very impressive in operations. It was not going to sweep the RN from anywhere. The only way for the Axis to have any control over the Med was air power. Malta could have been take if large resources were put into the effort. Airborne assault was unlikely to succeed, the lack of suitable landing areas and the nearby flak would make it a massacre. Naval assault would only be possible under massive air cover as any purely naval battle would be an axis defeat. No experience in amphibious operations and lack of landing craft, lack of easy landing areas would make it difficult. As the Pedestal convoy the British were willingly to take big losses to maintain Malta. Malta could be taken but not easily and most of the axis air power would be required.

Spain would be difficult to take by force without a sustained effort. The Pyrenees are not easy. Franco was not likely to be browbeaten. Allied intervention would be very likely.

North Africa it's the lack of shipping and port capacity not resources waiting to cross. Even with command of the Med, force projection by the Axis into North Africa is very limited. Trucking everything to the other end of North Africa makes it that much harder. The British always had large number of other resources in the middle east, east africa that could have been committed. Bigger Africa corps would be matched by more British forces and the supply situation would be that much worse. It's not just force it's effective force.

[layman]

Have you not heard of the most elemental divide and conquer strategy?

Yes but I don't think the "conquer" part was ever part of British strategy. I don't accept the notion that we ever wanted to "dominate" the European continent. The was an unofficial divide between European and non-European conquest which obviously suited us due to geography.

However, I don’t accept that the aggressive trade strategy of the British is synonymous with actually political domination.

regarding the British chances in the war without Soviets/USA, I think it was only a matter of time. Commonwealth assistance, especially Canada, would have helped a lot but I just don’t see it. For one thing, U-Boat production could have been much higher without the eastern front.

Would have been a hell of a guerilla campaign in the highlands though

[Section Leader]

How was Dunkirk a betrayal?The Allied armies had been defeated, there was nothing to be achieved by the British Army staying in France there was some attempt to land more troops elsewhere in France, but the Germans now had superior resources.

The British forces retreated without informing the French of their intentions, sounds like a betrayal of trust to me.

[Rich]

Lets get some facts here. It was Hitler who broke his word, humiliated Neville Chamberlain and proved all the Liberal, Socialist war mongers correct when he invaded the Czech republic. Britain, France and America were full of Conservatives who were sympathetic to the Nazis and wanted to appease them. Hitler did nothing to help the appeasers cause. Hitler could have got Danzig and the northern corridor back without war with the West if he hadn't invaded the Czech Republic first. It was our great noble anti Communist crusader Hitler who cut a deal with Stalin in 1939 and gave him Eastern Poland. So supposedly in 1939 we were meant to let Hitler carve up a another anti Communist country in the hope that at some point he'd get around to attacking the Soviet union. Hitler's war in 39 was lunacy. It was sheer luck that he defeated France. By any reasonable expectation Britain and France could expect to defeat Germany without Soviet help. It was Hitler who did immense help to the left / Communist cause by destroying the regimes of Poland, the Czech Republic, Norway, Denmark and France. but then who needed the aid of Poland to defeat the Soviet union when you had such fearsome warrior states as allies such as Italy and Vichy France on your side.

Having defeated France Hitler did want peace. Hitler ordered half his panzer divisions to be disbanded. Again absolutely zero interest in attacking the Soviet union. Its true that Hitler could have defeated Britain, if he concentrated his resources. With a focus on submarines and naval air. he could have probably brought Britain to its knees within a year, two at the outside. If He'd gone for Malta and insisted on military access to Tunisia Britain wouldn't have stood a chance. Even so with a war on two fronts, Hitler could have defeated the Soviet Union. Tens of millions were looking to be liberated from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union only survived because Germany came as genocidal tyrants not liberators. It was Hitler who managed to turn one of the worst tyrants in history into a liberator.

Adolf Hitler- the man who was full of shite.

[Section Leader]

The Germans were seen as liberators in the Baltic countries, the Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian SS divisions are still honoured as freedom fighters, didn't stop the Germans from losing the war. The immense manpower at Stalin's disposal as well as his relocation of much of the USSR's industrial base to Central Asia in the years prior to the war meant he was pretty much guaranteed to win eventually.

[Beren]

Adolf Hitler was a rat, who infected Germany and Europe with plague, which killed tens of millions of people.

[Section Leader]

I think they're all bad, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, all criminals who brought destruction upon Europe.

[Far-Right Sage]

Adolf Hitler was a rat, who infected Germany and Europe with plague, which killed tens of millions of people

Not at all, my friend.

The disease, the plague, the sickness in Europe has never been more present than today.

[Demosthenes]

I'm not going to defend Hitler... ever, but I think FRS's version of "theoretical events" is clearest, and closest to realism as we can get.

For you Anglophiles, defending beloved England and the rest of the allies, just like in the WWI, no one has acknowledged that part of the success of the allies was lend/lease from the US. They had plenty of materials available to them. Without these materials, since we are assuming the US stays neutral throughout the conflict, A Germany also not tied down by Barbarosa would make short work of the remaining British forces in Africa, and wherever they are left after Dunkirk.

Furthermore, the idea that an unoccupied Germany couldn't build up that needed infrastructure in the Med. sea, and take over and repair those Turkish rail lines seems shortsighted to me. If it's one thing Germans have always been able to do, its build.

Admin Edit- Anyway, Thread moved to alt history, Hitler threads like this are generally not acceptable but because this was contributed to fairly heavily in a "alt history" kind of way that has become more or less constructive, we'll let it stand. I will make some alterations to the OP, to make it slightly more acceptable.

[Oxymoron]

I dont like Hitler for selfish reasons, but in historic perspective he wasnt as bad as people like to think. The war he started was a direct result of the aggression of the Soviet Union in preceding years invading Finland,Baltics, Mongolia. He did alot for Germany to regain its step, the whole final solution was a mistake he made, if you want success you make Jews your friends not enemies.

[Far-Right Sage]

Good call, Demo.

This is an interesting discussion and I (and I'm sure others feel the same way) would rather it not deteriorate into a discussion of the ideological merits or failures of National Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Liberalism, etc. We all know where we stand on this by now, and it's not likely going to change.

[fuser]

Furthermore, the idea that an unoccupied Germany couldn't build up that needed infrastructure

Germany doesn't have luxury of slave labors and exploitation of Soviet lands in this scenario, so if anything their production is going to be lower than otl.

With an active Axis challenge to British authority in the Mediterranean, and German supplies and bases throughout Greece, Italy,

Which was true for otl and still they had a hard time supplying puny (in comparative numbers) Afrika Korps. and I am still not sold on iberian peninsula, I will cover that later.

German forces could have run supplies successfully past the Volga

I don't think volga and Mediterranean are comparable. other than RN working with impunity disturbing the supply lines of Axis powers, Axis power never had much naval assets to begin with for sending and supplying a vast amount of troops offshore.

It's quite logical that if a front did not exist against the Soviet Union, all German time, men, and materiale would be directed against the British position

No. Why would Germany leave her eastern border unguarded even without a war (they had substantial forces in east in WW1 even after defeating Russia), other than the deep distrust of Soviet Union it isn't a logical thing to do for any country specially when that country seems hostile to you. What is the Guarantee that SU won't attack Germany?

in the Mediterranen, in North Africa, in the Middle East

Without Mediterranean there is no North Africa, without North Africa there is no middle east and without neutralizing RN, there is no Mediterranean.

this was a close battle in our reality even with millions of men and resources focusing on the Eastern Front.

With the benefit of hindsight, I say Germany was never going to win this conflict.

The Soviet Union would be no more threatened by the occupation of Spain and Portugal

not a direct threat but of course they are going to notice a beast that has expanded from Vistula to Gibraltar and SU surely is not going to feel easy about it.

Japan desired Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong

Japan desired china and felt threatened by USA, Japan UK friendship treaty was virtually targeted against USA, the reason RN was non existent in pacific was because there was Japanese fleet there already to help.
We may not realize it but UK and Japan were very close friends prior to war.

there could have come a point at which they decided Britain would never be able to repay the debts (which might, for instance, have brought in a new president in 1945 who didn't support Britain).

And how would Germany will be able to continue 1945, not only their economy was on brink of collapse, they aren't enjoying war booty and are effectively blockaded. They dangerously depend on Soviet Union for all their needs, a very dangerous position, I will say.

Britain would have been starved of food and resources.

How? through Uboats? Interesting scenario but most probably won't work.

The shocking betrayal of the French at Dunkirk

There was no such thing as betrayal there.

The immense manpower at Stalin's disposal

I seriously don't want to play statistics here but there was no such thing as "immense manpower" but much better manpower management.

I (and I'm sure others feel the same way) would rather it not deteriorate into a discussion of the ideological merits or failures of National Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Liberalism, etc.

I echo this sentiment.

[Wolfman]

In before delete!

Death to all Nazi scum!



I wonder if I could use this picture as my avatar?

[Beren]

Not at all, my friend.

We'll never be friends.

The disease, the plague, the sickness in Europe has never been more present than today.

There is a never seen harvest of death in Europe obviously.

[Section Leader]

In before delete!

Death to all Nazi scum!

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum ... 1308429788

I wonder if I could use this picture as my avatar? :lol:

It's unknown whether that was Hitler or not, the Soviets kept changing their story, first they said he had been killed in a gun battle between the Red Army and remaining SS forces (with that body supposedly being him), then they said they believed he'd escaped, then they said he shot himself. The skull fragment in the KGB archives was that of a woman 20 years younger than Hitler.

[Wolfman]

Do I care? Point is, Hitler is dead, and we should all open our days with a nice rousing shout of "Death to all nazi scum! Best thing they can do is kill themselves!" I know I do.

[Smilin' Dave]

The worst kind of alternate history is one that is premised entirely around wish fulfilment. Quoting something I wrote a little while ago...

Following from this, is an apparent trend where alternate history is used simply for wish fulfilment. This wish fulfilment aspect can kick in as soon as the author starts to craft their alternate history: is the alternative being considered out of curiosity and for entertainment, or is it more base escapism to create a world which is somehow more desirable? The previously suggested failure of an alternate history by way of unlikely outcomes can be the product of the narrative following the author’s wishes rather than a simple mistake. In a way alternative history as wish fulfilment belongs to the same category as harkening back to a (often itself imagined) glorious past.

Kirby's "alternate history" is premised on complete nonsense. It isn't a historical Nazi Germany or even a realistic varient, it's a variation of Nazi Germany that he can feel less guilty about cheering about. It ignores Germany's rearmament of expansion of its armed forces beyond any potential threat from its neighbours. It ignores the Hossbach Memorandum of 1937, which clearly laid out the intentions for a war of aggression, and where Britain and France are listed as "hate inspired antagonists" rather than potential allies or neutral parties.

It ignores the Munich Conference of 1938. And so on. In fact, for this scenario to work not only does Hitler and Nazi Germany in general have to inexplicably do a complete U-turn on policy, it requires all the other major powers to take a different approach to foreign policy.

Then just to make this farse even more ridiculous we have to see these tired old alternate 'options' dug out.

defeating them on land in North Africa and everywhere else

How? The Germans didn't have the capacity to support a larger force in North Africa. There were not enough ports, not enough ships, and even if you can get material and men to North Africa, getting it all up one road is a nightmare. Any delay to negate British advantages in the region (naval bases, airbases etc.) just gives them more time to dig in and build up their land forces in North Africa.

This fantasy is also incompatible with Kirby's. Super-peaceful Hitler still has an amazing war machine for some reason? Please.

opening the route through Egypt to the Middle Eastern oilfields.

The infrastructure for a push into the Middle East via Egypt is even worse than in North Africa, especially if you assume the British were willing to destroy infrastructure rather than let Germany have it, which was pretty much the plan anyway.

Also making a dash for the oil fields pretty well guarantees US intervention. They've got an interest in the oil fields of the Middle East already, and their only previous barrier had been the British. As much as they might have disliked the British Empire, a Nazi Empire bent on autarky (again, see the Hossbach Memorandum) wasn't going to be a better partner in the Middle East.

But to FRS's credit, he digs out a newish silly solutions to Nazi problems

Operation Isabella could have been enacted, the German occupation of Spain and Portugal and use of Gibraltar, either willingly or unwillingly on the part of the Spanish and Portuguese.

A lack of troops was never the issue that prevented an occupation of Spain and Portugal, it was strictly political (well that and occupied Spain probably would have been a weeping sore of insurgency but anyway...). Knocking out Gibraltar would have been a good strategic move, but any other gain of occupying Spain etc. would have been negligble. Oh, and it would have alienated the other Axis powers and potentially friendly neutrals, which would probably be an issue further down the line.

And again, incompatible with Kirby's peaceful Hitler. And 'but I'm talking about something else' isn't an excuse, you posted in this thread, you can stick with the OP.

Prosthetic Conscience is wrong, but at least is probably not doing so for ideological reasons:

Without the entry of the Soviet Union, and then the United States, into the war, the Battle of the Atlantic could have been very different - Germany could have poured its resources into it.

It would have taken the Germans years to expand their 1939-era productive capacity to provide the ships, submarines, planes etc. suitable for an expanded Battle of the Atlantic. Nazi Germany churned out relatively short ranged subs etc. early in the war essentially because that was the easiest thing for them to build in bulk, bigger ships, subs etc. would have absorbed more time and production facilities. For example the Type XXI subs didn't go into productin until 1943, and its hard to believe the delay was because of a previous lack of materials, by 1943 the Germans would have been scraping the bottom of the resource barrel already.

Demosthenes, I am disappoint...

Furthermore, the idea that an unoccupied Germany couldn't build up that needed infrastructure in the Med. sea, and take over and repair those Turkish rail lines seems shortsighted to me. If it's one thing Germans have always been able to do, its build.

I'm sure they could have, but whether they could have done so quickly enough for the British to gain time to complete their rearmament, for the political situation to shift etc. is to my mind unlikely. There is also the problem that Turkey probably wouldn't have agreed to essentially become a German military base, and the longer it takes for the Germans to get them to go along with it (via cooperation or invasion) the worse it gets.

While I run down the list of posts...

The British forces retreated without informing the French of their intentions, sounds like a betrayal of trust to me.

The 100,000 French troops evacuated must have been asleep for the entire evacuation then

The war he started was a direct result of the aggression of the Soviet Union in preceding years invading Finland,Baltics, Mongolia.

I direct result... nearly two decades later, with several changes of leadership? Keeping in mind that with the partial exception of Mongolia, none of those Soviet acts of aggression had been successful. Or that Nazi Germany happily facilitated Soviet ambitions in the Baltics when it suited them.

And to show I'm not and entirely disagreeable type:

Death to all Nazi scum!

I concur.

[pugsville]

The Build up to a Greater Axis Mediterranean Strategy is harder and takes more time than proposers of this strategy are normally willing to invest.

If Greater Forces are to be sent to North Africa, the build up is slower, Engineers and equipment are shipped rather than troops and supported while they expand Port facilities. More trucks are sent which consume more supplies and petrol and operate on the same pretty ordinary road that is going to supply everything. The More forces that are committed the slower the build up.

Any plan for the Invasion of Malta ultimately revolves around the Italian Navy. It's not suitable for Aerial assault. The Nerve of the Italian Navy was questionable, and any German plan could be aborted by Italian Admiral not being too keen. The British and the Royal Navy showed they were willingly to sacrifice quite a lot for Malta, and it's unlikely Axis build up would be unnoticed. If Massive air resources were used and the Italian Navy hold firm (questionable) Malta should fall, but it;s not a certainty. If the Allies get intelligence in time vigorous action to defend Malta (which could be an Allied disaster and expensive, but the total destruction of the Italian navy is also a real chance)

Invasion of Spain was also hard. The Border with Occupied France was very very narrow, most of it being Vichy France, If more than a small sector was to be attacked the collapse of the Vichy France Regime would be necessary which been another political sign the Nazi could not be trusted and made neutrals very Leary of working with or allowing German troops on their soil, and certainly lead to the Various French colonies being thrown whole heartedly into the Free French camp. Any build up against the Spanish border would have been pretty much advance notice (as in months) of German intentions. The Pyrenees are trivial, bad country to assault over. Allied supplies of weapons before a German invasion are likely, ant invasion would require a lot of the German army for months. Most of 1941 in fact ( as no campaign was likely in winter and 1940 was needed for re-organization) . Spain would not be easy, it's not well suited to mobile armored warfare, it's not very flat. German success is not certain. Germany attacking Spain, which almost certainly requires the collapse of the Vichy regime to get a workable attacking border would have signaled that no regime no matter how Ideologically similar or compatible or compliant would be safe from this Regime, it would destroyed what little credibility they had.

[Rich]

Yet another of Hitler's stupidities was his peace deal with the French. His totally unnecessary occupation of Northern and western France hopelessly undermined the legitimacy of the Vichy regime, while he failed to secure what he really needed which was military access to North Africa. Of course he'd already shown his true colours with his brutal treatment of Poland and the Czech republic. Hitler was the most terrible bully. But to such an extent that it massively undermined his success. In fact apart from an immediate pillaging he could have got far more useful resources from independent but cowered nation states than he did from occupation. There's no reason he couldn't have bought Czech tanks without occupying the Czech republic as he bought Romanian oil without occupying Romania. His military power would have allowed him to get favourable trade terms.

With his air force operating from Tangier's and Tunis, the British position in the Mediterranean would have been untenable. He could also have demanded military access to Crete and the other Greek island from the Greeks. The British shipping situation was at breaking point as it was. To defeat Britain all he had to do was leverage his power on the continent to gain power in the Mediterranean. Invading Spain would have been stupid, but bringing Spain into the war on his side should not have been difficult if hadn't messed things up and Franco hadn't started to doubt that Germany was going to be victorious. With Spain he could have flipped Portugal. He could also have brought the Turks in on his side. Britain's Arab clients would have been terribly vulnerable to internal dissent and coup. If he'd restored Dutch independence there's no reason he couldn't have got access to Dutch oil. Britain could not have maintained the blockade in such a situation.

[Beren]

Yet another of Hitler's stupidities was his peace deal with the French. His totally unnecessary occupation of Northern and western France hopelessly undermined the legitimacy of the Vichy regime, while he failed to secure what he really needed which was military access to North Africa.

What he really needed to secure was Paris, the Channel, and direct access to the North Atlantic. North Africa and even the Mediterranean didn't have such strategic significance and he could count on Italy's assistance anyway. So he made a good decision when he decided to occupy only the strategically most important regions of France, so he could save some troops and use them somewhere else.