[R_G]

Hitler a rubbish military leader???

Dude, any general who gets Parkinson's will start making uncharacteristic mistakes.

Northern Africa in my opinion WAS the key battleground of the war SO many overlook.

Had Hitler given Rommel even 100k forces ( although 250,000 would have been an assurance ) the Brits would have lost Northern AFrica and a lot of their resources, allowing for a smoother Nazi invasion.

Hitler's Parkinson's is believed to have made him more blindfully aggressive, taking Britain was the initial plan, and Northern Africa was part of it.

After taking Britain, most of the forces would have been concentrated on the Soviet Union, and at least the Western part of it would have been conquered.

After that it's up to debate whether the German would have invaded the U.S.

Chances are by early 1943 the Nazis would have all of Europe.

Meaning it would be at least 2 years before the U.S. had nuclear capabilities.

[Oxymoron]

If Hitler had focsued his entire attention on capturing Moscow -the economic centre of Russia, he would have taken it easily. He did, after all, only come within 80 or so miles of the city.

If he did that his forces would be encircled by Soviet Southern and Northen Armies cutting his supply lines and then counter with the Siberian Divisions.

Unfortunately for him though, Hitler was a fool. His micro-management of the war meant poor military decisions were made -such as the battle of Stalingrad and the decision to dilute German forces rather than concentrate them on Moscow.

Although Hitler did make desicions that were bad from a military stand point so did Stalin.

The answer to your question? Hitler was a brilliant politician but a rubbish military leader. The US didn't defeat Hitler, the USSR didn't defeat Hitler, he was the cause of his own demise.

Um the total destruction of France and her British Ally proves otherwise.The Germans had less tanks, numbers and supplies.

[Unvincibledudeman]

If he did that his forces would be encircled by Soviet Southern and Northen Armies cutting his supply lines and then counter with the Siberian Divisions.

On the contrary, it was Hitler who was doing the encircling. I do not mean that he has only one massive division in the East and sends it off to Moscow. He had three main targets; Moscow, the southern oil fields and Leningrad. He should have continued to sweep his forces across the whole length of Russia but his primary target should have been Moscow.

Although Hitler did make desicions that were bad from a military stand point so did Stalin.

True. But Stalin's mistakes were early in the war, and he learned that if he was going to defeat the Wehrmacht, he should let his generals control the army, which is what he did. Zhukov was responsible for the USSR's greatest victories, not Stalin.

Hitler on the other hand micro-managed the war. He issued a Stalin-esque order at Stalingrad by ignoring the system of Blitzkrieg and in doing so he lost his 6th army. He simply sacked his generals if they said things he didn't like. I believe that if his generals had controlled the army, victory at Moscow would have been assured.

Um the total destruction of France and her British Ally proves otherwise.The Germans had less tanks, numbers and supplies

Hitler didn't devise Blitzkrieg. His generals did. Much of Europe was easy for him to take. He was fighting small countries who weren't adapted to countering the new kind of mobilised warfare. The idea of conquering a nation within weeks was an absurd notion for most. The fact Hitler had a very good stab at France and Britain doesn't mean he was a good military commander. They were small countries that were relatively easy to take. (If operation sea lion had gone underway, the UK would have been conquered easily. This is a tiny country).

Yes, the Germans had less tanks, number and supplies but the idea of Blitzkrieg was that for the most part, these were irrelevant. He certainly had enough to conquer Russia. He was just an idiot who didn't apply Blitzkrieg correctly.

Dude, any general who gets Parkinson's will start making uncharacteristic mistakes.

Parkinsons disease primarily affects motor neurones and does not cloud judgment. He was a little boy playing with toy soldiers. He should have left the war fighting to the ones capable of doing it properly.

I don't know much of Hitler's African campaign, so I can't really comment on it. However, doing that would mean his eastern forces would be standing still. Blitzkrieg states that the forces must be mobile until the country is occupied. if he simply slowed or postponed his advance in Russia, the Soviets would have sent wave after wave into the chatter of German machine gun fire and eventually break through and overwhelm the German forces.

As for Hitler's invasion of the US, I think that he would have moved troops east through Russia to north America and just repeated what he did to the Soviets (assuming Operation Barbarossa was cost effective in terms of economy and military losses and that it was successful).

[R_G]

Parkinsons disease primarily affects motor neurones and does not cloud judgment. He was a little boy playing with toy soldiers. He should have left the war fighting to the ones capable of doing it properly.

I don't know much of Hitler's African campaign, so I can't really comment on it. However, doing that would mean his eastern forces would be standing still. Blitzkrieg states that the forces must be mobile until the country is occupied. if he simply slowed or postponed his advance in Russia, the Soviets would have sent wave after wave into the chatter of German machine gun fire and eventually break through and overwhelm the German forces.

As for Hitler's invasion of the US, I think that he would have moved troops east through Russia to north America and just repeated what he did to the Soviets (assuming Operation Barbarossa was cost effective in terms of economy and military losses and that it was successful).

Okay listen kid, Hitler chose to invade Russia after repeated attempts of conquering Britain failed, more or less because of the British victories/defenses in Northern Africa.

This was 1940/41, had Hitler just gave Rommel the men needed he would have defeated Montgomery and the British would have fallen leaving the Soviets to face the majority of Hitler's army, Soviets lose by 43, Hitler has the opportunity to invade the U.S.

[Unvincibledudeman]

You may call me a kid, but I am not stupid. The policy of Lebensraum was that land was taken from the east and use to accommodate the new race of Aryan Germans, whilst ethnically cleansing the Slavic Untermenschen at the same time. The only reason Britain went to war with Germany was because we were an ally of Poland -the second country Hitler invaded, the first being Czechoslovakia which was too small to start a war over.

Why did Hitler invade Poland? To get to Russia. There was an agreement between Stalin and Hitler but that was broken, partly because Hitler was preparing for the USSR's invasion (inspections of Soviet factories and reconnaissance) and because by attacking Poland, he had to eliminate France from becoming a threat.

Hitler desperately wanted Britain on his side. The combined forces of the Axis and the Allies would have easily destroyed Russia and Hitler's Lebensraum policy would have been fulfilled. Unfortunately, Poland stood between Germany and Russia and then Hitler was facing multiple enemies.

[Donna]

Hitler was a corporal, not a general.

Hitler desperately wanted Britain on his side. The combined forces of the Axis and the Allies would have easily destroyed Russia and Hitler's Lebensraum policy would have been fulfilled. Unfortunately, Poland stood between Germany and Russia and then Hitler was facing multiple enemies.

Hitler still wanted the Danzig.

[Oxymoron]

On the contrary, it was Hitler who was doing the encircling. I do not mean that he has only one massive division in the East and sends it off to Moscow. He had three main targets; Moscow, the southern oil fields and Leningrad. He should have continued to sweep his forces across the whole length of Russia but his primary target should have been Moscow.

Right primary Moscow would mean more force which would leave Army North and South weaker. The same Army Group North that couldnt take LeninGrad, with less force they would be broken and Army Group Center would be cut off.

True. But Stalin's mistakes were early in the war, and he learned that if he was going to defeat the Wehrmacht, he should let his generals control the army, which is what he did. Zhukov was responsible for the USSR's greatest victories, not Stalin.

Right if those mistakes werent made perhaps the Germans wouldnt be a few miles of from to taking Moscow.

Hitler on the other hand micro-managed the war. He issued a Stalin-esque order at Stalingrad by ignoring the system of Blitzkrieg and in doing so he lost his 6th army. He simply sacked his generals if they said things he didn't like. I believe that if his generals had controlled the army, victory at Moscow would have been assured.

Perhaps but that is a large guess, what exactly did Hitler order that the Moscow objective wasnt taken?

Hitler didn't devise Blitzkrieg. His generals did. Much of Europe was easy for him to take. He was fighting small countries who weren't adapted to countering the new kind of mobilised warfare. The idea of conquering a nation within weeks was an absurd notion for most. The fact Hitler had a very good stab at France and Britain doesn't mean he was a good military commander. They were small countries that were relatively easy to take. (If operation sea lion had gone underway, the UK would have been conquered easily. This is a tiny country).

He wasnt a military commander at all, but his sweeping directives did hurt the German effort at the end of the war.

Yes, the Germans had less tanks, number and supplies but the idea of Blitzkrieg was that for the most part, these were irrelevant. He certainly had enough to conquer Russia. He was just an idiot who didn't apply Blitzkrieg correctly.

The Germany military failed Barbarrosa on the day it was launched. The Germans had no chance to win that war, something they should have learned from Napolean.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

I realise that this thread has been dead for a long while but I only just found this place and this is something I’m really interested in.
Some facts (and these are purely army stats):
From 1st of Sept 1939 – 21st of June 1941 the German Army lost 96K KIA.
From 22nd of June 1941 – 1st Sept 1941 the German Army lost 160K KIA.
Nearly twice that was lost in the 1st 34 months.
85% of German army troops that were killed in action occurred on the Eastern front compared with 6.8% in Western Europe and 3.1% in the Mediterranean
At no time was did the German army have less than 50% of it’s forces deployed on the Eastern front (remembering that Europe was garrisoned from Greece to Norway) except in late 1944 after Army Group Center was destroyed by Operation Bagration and Army Group North Ukraine was very roughly handled. Even at this point (during the Battle of the Bulge) the German Army only deployed 99 divisions in the west and 136 divisions in the east. At the end of the war it 73 divisions (west) to 156 (east).
I have no figures on the air or sea war but wars are won on the ground and without belittling the efforts of the Western Powers it seems inconceivable that they could have won the war had the USSR been knocked out or kept neutral. If the USSR had have signed a peace treaty with the Nazis in 1943 the D-Day landings wouldn’t have been a success, however had the West done the same in 1943 the USSR still would have won it just might have taken longer.

*Hitler’s Dying Ground: Description and Destruction of the German Army. W. Victor Madej.
ISBN 0-941052-23-0