Zephyr Net

Yea many failure can be contributed to Hitlers meddling, he kept taking control of things he knew nathing about. From aircraft production, weopons, to military tactics that cost him the war. I think his biggest blunder was his treatment of his allies, I mean the man didnt trust his own allies. He didnt want to supply them with proper weopns they need nor would he allow them to produce them, them selves. Take Romaina for example they had a great plane the IAR-39, that need 20 mm cannons and better engines, insted of helping them, Germany didnt allows almost any of the equipment to be used by them. Leaving a good plane with pour armament of 6 mostly 4 7.7 mm guns. He hium self prob cause many of his allies to desert him in 1943-44.

_________________


August 2nd 2003
The 110th Anniversary of Yugolsaivan Aviation!
St. Elias the gardian of the Fighter pilot.

It's ironic that the very people Hitler persecuted would build the atom bomb for us and spell the end of the Axis........

It ultimatley was his extreme racism that cost *ermany the war.......

_________________


allah no longer exists, for I have killed him. You must worship me instead.

In the Germany would have lost anyway after all the world was allied against them. The way it happened the suffering lasted long enough.

There were several mistakes that if they were avoided could have won the war.

The main one is if the force was not split in Russia, if the the full force was used Stalingrad could have fallen then Moscow, and the Ukrainian oil field. That would have taken the Russians out of the war, no Russia = no eastern front. That is if hitler kept the army as one not spliting it into two then three parts.

If the east fell then many resources could have been diaverted to the Africana front, possibly colapsing the African and Middle east front. Leaving Germany without a war to fight, being able to crack down on the Partizans of the Balkans and the Ressistance in the western Europe.

Without thouse "OBSTICLES" in their way Germany could and would have consentrated 100% of their resources on the beaches of Normandy making the D-Day landings impossible.

What realy helped the D-Day landings was the fact that the Germans were fighting several fronts as well as Partizans. and with out the French ressistance destroying railroads and stopping many imprtant shipments to the Normandy coast the landings could have ben even harder then they were.

_________________


August 2nd 2003
The 110th Anniversary of Yugolsaivan Aviation!
St. Elias the gardian of the Fighter pilot.

I wish I had entered this discussion earlier...

I have never read such a massive amount of inaccuracies and downright bogus claims in my life. I guess it is attributed to a combination of patriotism and lack of a good education in history...

Here are the facts...

1) In 1939/40 the US had no effective tanks or anti tank weapons.. We would not have been able to stop the new German tactical warfare. Blitzkrieg would have overrun our military. Our Airforce was highly outclassed in fighters, but the Germans NEVER had an effective long range bombardment bomber. Our Navy was second to none. Even the Atlantic Fleet alone could have easily destroyed any German invasion fleet, which is why at that time we had a weak army as the Navy was charged with defending the country not the Army...

2) However if we were a continental european country and did not have 3000 miles of Atlantic Ocean seperating us then our military would not have been in that condition to begin with. We would have effectively stopped the Germans just we did the Iraqis...

3) The Germans never had an effective nuclear program. Their top nuclear physicist thought they would need a bomb with 1 ton of uranium in it to support a reaction! They did not have the resources nor the capability to build nucs.

4) while it is true the Germans did manage to send 1 bomber(with no cargo nor weapons adding weight) to New York, it did not enter teh defense perimeter of the city nor come close even to the coast. It simply flew until it could see the lights(yes they still had not implemented an effective blackout) and then turned away back to Germany...

5) The French were suffering from a huge lack of morale and defeatism... They expected to lose from the beginning. They did not have to surrender at 6 weeks, they had only lost less then 1/3 of their country to the Germans, but they simply lacked the will to fight on.. Just as they do today..

6)The V4, produced or not, would have had the same effect that the V1 and V2 had... none... The Germans had no way of arming it with a nuclear warhead so it was just a longer ranged V2...

7)The Germans would never have been able to sustain war output into 1946/47 as they were cut off from the necessary resources for production and starved for fuel. So even if they had managed to knock out the Russians they would have taken atleast 5 years to successfully tap into their resources for development as the Russians had a fully scorched earth policy and left the Germans nothing in the in conquered areas..

the Russians were really never close to being over run or defeated, even if they had lost Moscow.. They had laready evacuated all their war production to the Urals and their political machine was also moved. They simply would have continued the war and ground the German offensive down just as they did.

9) The free french and the resistance play important roles in the invasion, however their use was by no means a make or break issue. The invasion would have succeeded with or without them. Their targets would have been hit with other means if they had not been there to do it. Paratroopers and special forces coupled with Army Aircorp strikes would have been sufficient to completely isolate the invasion beaches on D-Day. As it turned out the Germans never attempted to move troops up to the beaches so isolating them on D-Day was not as important.

10) The Germans have never understood the US will to fight. Our service men proved they would not fold when attacked with superior numbers and weapons in the Battle of the Bulge.. They held fast in small pockets all over the front and forced the Germans to slow their advance until reinforcements cut off and isolated the German divisions. If we had been fighting for our homes we would have been unstoppable, even as guerilla fighters if our conventional army was over run...

I could go on and on, but I guess I have made my point...

I agree with much of what you said, and i have been saying things in some of thouse lines my self.

But you have to look at the fact that most well almost all of the Russian production was in the west of the counrty if the Germans had a good long range bombers as you said they could have succeded in defeatiing the Russians, even id the Russain did destroy eveything in their path, there would have been a one less front freeing up massive amount of manpower. If the Balkan Partizans were not there there ould have been some 30 extra German divisions at hitlers disposal if not more. Did ya know that there were 22 German divisions in Yugoslavia due to the Partizans? Thats a lot of people. The act is that the fightining in Africa was going horrible for the Allies early on, if the Germans put enuff pressure on them there the front could have colapsed.

The best thing would have been not to attack Russia and focus on Africa. If that did happen, there could have been a different out come.

_________________


August 2nd 2003
The 110th Anniversary of Yugolsaivan Aviation!
St. Elias the gardian of the Fighter pilot.

Oh wait I was not refering to Tito's partisans.. That was a truly effective fighting force designed from the beginning as an army in the field.. I was referring to the French underground...

The Yugo partisans were quite necessary, but still, even if they had not been there, Germany would still have lost the war... Atomic weapons would have ended their field armies in a few quick blasts..

Yes I do agree with you on that, the Americans did fight hard, much is owed to thouse men who gave their lives. But so did many other people, the French not realy, they had the most profesional army but lacked modern weopons, when the armament industry was nationalized the indusrty went ot a stand still. The lacked many modern planes and tanks during the invasion and the tanks they did have some were very impratical. The modern equipment they had was too few and too far between. They mostly had what can be called semi-modern weopons, its like a MiG-21/23 today, not compleatly useless but no real match for F-16/18 on its own.

_________________


August 2nd 2003
The 110th Anniversary of Yugolsaivan Aviation!
St. Elias the gardian of the Fighter pilot.

well I wasnt only reffering to the Yugos but also to the Greeks and other who ressisted. I know what you mean about the French underground but they made a noticable not large or huge but noticable contribtion.

I was never thinking og Nukes, i was considering convertional warfare, If all thouse devisons sidetraced in Africa, Balkans and Russia were available to fight in D-Day landing and the Western front that followed, there could have been a very different out come. Possibly much of the invasion wold have stoped on the beaches.

_________________


August 2nd 2003
The 110th Anniversary of Yugolsaivan Aviation!
St. Elias the gardian of the Fighter pilot.

No I fully disagree... It did not matter the number of forces on D-Day.. They still had the same command and control under Hitler's thumb.. If the Germans had that many forces available in the Western Theater then dont you think the invasion would also have been different? It would have been even larger and with possibly a southern and northern invasion at the same time to cut off all German forces in France from those in Germany...

You can not compare the same D-Day with a different correlation of forces, as it makes no sense that it would also not be differnt on the Allied side...

Never realy considered that. My mind was taking me to the same tactic for the invasion, because, I pesonaly cannot invision the D-Day landing anyother way.

But then realy think about it would an invasion seem plosible in France if the Germans were to have all thouse extra resources to bould up the sea wall? If they were to build the wall correctly could an invasion be possible in France, couldnt have been eazier to land somewhere else?

Yes I agree that it would have all been under Hilters figner tips, and we all know what blunders he had made. He was like Stalin, always taking conrtol over everything but unlike Stalin who learned to let go and have his Generals deal with the war, Hitler tightened his grip.

_________________


August 2nd 2003
The 110th Anniversary of Yugolsaivan Aviation!
St. Elias the gardian of the Fighter pilot.

D-Day wold even have been successful if more German forces had been present, due to the fact that it was not expected ot happen at Dünkirchen.

Anyway you cannot just take the eastern front out of the equation, it was Hitler primary goal to invade Russia. More German troops couldnt have changed the war in the long run. Look at how many soldiers Germany could "produce" compared to the allies. THe next problem is that the industry couldnt compete (in quantity) with the allies.

The biggest mistake Hitler ever made was going into Russia (that is well second biggest, first was starting the war in the First place) because that was where his amies began lusing and were being pushed back. At a very high cost for the Russians.

The reason why I belive that if the Germans had no fronts to fight during D-Day they could have won is because, the soilders are most vonerable during the landing when they are exsposed on the beaches, if they had enuff gunners and other anti-personnel traps they could have been able to eliminate many troops. (Good thing that never happened)

_________________


August 2nd 2003
The 110th Anniversary of Yugolsaivan Aviation!
St. Elias the gardian of the Fighter pilot.

BT lets approach this differently...

We will cover two seperate responses in your posts. (BTW did I ever tell you I love that pic of the Yugo jet you use? I used the Yugo tail markings on my DPRK airforce jets becasue the national markings are so close and that tail looks cool!)...

1) I disagree with your assessment of French arms in 1940...

They had superior tanks and aircraft to the Germans, and more of them. They tanks were thicker armored and had heavier guns. They had fighters equal to or superior to the then available ME-109s and ME-110s.. They had superior ranged and qty or artillery. They had the maginot line fortifications if properly supported and extended to cover their entire frontier would have been quite formidable. They had a much larger navy and access to all three naval areas of conflict, the channel, the atlantic, and the med...

They simply had no will to win, antoher words... no guts, no glory!

2) The Germans would have lost on D-Day no matter what ground forces they had at their disposal.. The allies had full and complete air superiority. THey would have intradicted any major movements of armor on D0Day. If the Germans had larger forces the allies would have inclrease the size and scope of the invasions and used 3rd army in the invasion instead of two weeks later. The results would have been the same becasue wars are won or lost by logistical support, not tactical maneuver..

It was *rance that encouraged Hitler to continue conquering new lands in the first place............what with all their appeasement and concessions.

That's historys lesson- Force speaks more clearly than words.........

_________________


allah no longer exists, for I have killed him. You must worship me instead.