Ok folks, this hypothetical assumes that the German Generals and Admirals would decide when, where and how to fight and could choose to conquer one front at a time. Hitler merely chooses the countries to fight and builds what the Generals need. Let's hear some opinions of what the sequence of the war would be and results we could have expected....
For starters the war would probably have started later. The Admirals in particular were planning for a war to start in the mid-1940s. Raeder had in mind the Z-plan, with two surface battlegroups each with a carrier. Four Bismarck class battleships were planned. An alternative, cheaper plan was to concentrate on U-boats and Deutschland-class surface raiders, but even this was nowhere near the stage the Admirals wanted in 1939. Adrian
They were (The Graf Zeppelin) but it was never completed. I think the hull was laid down and built a bit but that was it. Trying searching for it on google it might bring something up. Personally I think that the conduct of the war would have been much better and the likelyhood would have been less casualties as the German troops would of been able to retreat and Stalingrad would not have happened the way it did. Germany would of possisably conquered the USSR if the Generals had contact of the war. Hitler made nothing but bad decisions and crippled his armies ablity to win the war.
The Graz Zeppelin was launched on 18 December 1938 & was 85-90% complete at the outbreak of war. Construction was suspended in May 1940 in order to free uo resources for U boat construction. Work was resumed on 31 May 1942 but suspended again 30 January 1943. A second carrier was planned but work proceeded very slowly so that any changes needed as a result of operational experience with Graf Zeppelin could be incorporated. Source is Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-46. Some sources name the second ship Peter Strasser after a WW1 Zeppelin commander but Conway's calls her simply Ship B & I don't think that it was German practice to name a ship at such an early stage of construction. Again fron Conway's, the Z Plan envisaged a fleet of 8 battleships (2 Bismarcks, 6 H class), 5 battlecruisers (2 Gneisenau, 3 P Class), 8 heavy cruisers (including the pocket battleships), 13 light cruisers, 22 Scouts, 68 destroyers, 90 torpedo boats, 249 submarines, 302 small fighting vessels, 10 minelayers & 909 auxiliaries. It does say that German sources differ "surprisingly" on these figures. The book isn't clear on the completion date; it says that these "would remain in commission until 1948." The entry on the H class battleships says that in 1939 Hitler wanted them to be completed in 6 years. One problem with what-ifs based on the Z Plan is that they don't tend to allow for a British response. I don't know what the 1939 plans were for the strength of the RN in the mid 40s were but the actual strength at the end of the war was 14 battleships plus 1 completing in 1946, 1 battlecruiser, 6 fleet carriers operational plus 2 older ones afloat but not in service, 7 light fleet carriers plus 4 more completing in late 1945 & 1946 & 5 British built escort carriers. This doesn't count Anerican built escort carriers supplied under lend lease. A further 3 fleet carriers & 10 light fleet carriers were under construction at the end of the war. Work on these was suspended but 2 of the fleet carriers & 9 of the light ones were eventually finished between 1948-59, some of them for Commonwealth navies. War losses were 3 battleships, 2 battlecruisers, 5 fleet carriers & 1 escort carrier, again excluding US lend lease ships. 4 battleships, of which 2 had been laid down, were cancelled during the war to divert resources to ship repair and the construction of convoy escorts. With actual or cancelled construction & no casualties I make that 25 battleships, 3 battlecruisers, 24 fleet or light fleet carriers & 5 escort carriers in mid 1946 plus 3 fleet & 10 light fleet carriers under construction. Some of the battleships were elderly & some of the older carriers were small & I doubt if the RN would have built as many carriers without the lessons of the war but the shipyard capacity was there to build warships, whether carriers, battleships or cruisers. This shows what the Z Plan fleet was up against.
He was a fairly competent politician , orator & despicable dictator however he was still a private who thought in numbers and not tactics. Unlike Stalin's purge of the military, Hitler just tied most of their hands together which amounted to the same thing.
Well the French Campaign would not have ended in 6 weeks that's for sure. The only reason Von Mansteins plan was accepted was that Hitler insisted upon it. The Germans were planning a variation of the Schlieffen plan for their attack into France and the Allied forces would have met it on much more equal terms. Whilst the Germans may have prevailed (and there is no certainty of this) the Allies would certainly have given a better account of themselves in the campaign and Dunkirk may not have happened. So we need to look into the scenario of the British Army getting away with its equipment or indeed a repeat of the first world war where a large front is established through France and Belgium and the British not being chased out of the country because France doesnt capitulate. Also if Hitler had let the Generals decide what to do then North Africa would have been less of a sideshow and Russia may not have been attacked. the Germans were acutely aware of the folly of a two front war.
Albert Speer: "..the victories of the early years of the war can literally be attributed to Hitler's ignorance of the rules of the game and his layman's delight in decision making. Since the other side was trained to apply rules which Hitler's self-taught autocratic mind did not know and did not use, he achieved surprise. These audacities, coupled with military superiority, were the basis of his early success. But as soon as setbacks occurred he suffered shipwreck, like most untrained people" Interesting observation, which I will buy at least in part. I think in the early years he was at least willing to listen to his generals, even if he did not always act on their advice. And if ever there was a leader who did not just issue policies and leave it to the generals, it was Churchill, who was always "interfering".
It is an interesting observation Angie. I too only partly agree with it too. The Generals knew the folly of a 2 front war and they ended up with a 4 front war (East, West, Italy and the home front as a result of the allied bombing)
</div><div class='quotemain'> And if ever there was a leader who did not just issue policies and leave it to the generals, it was Churchill, who was always "interfering". [/b] At least the Allied Generals could "push-back" against Churchill without repercussions. For instance, Churchill wanted to have a multi-front invasion and Monty won out on that. To me that kind of meddling isn't harmful because Churchill would listen to reason. But regardless of Spier's opinion, it was air power and air power alone that allowed for the Blitzkrieg victories, not Hitler's ignorance. His statement sounds like the run of the mill gratuitous platitudes one would expect from a subordinate of a ruthless dictator.
(jimbotosome @ Oct 10 2005, 07:03 PM) [post=39887] it was air power and air power alone that allowed for the Blitzkrieg victories, not Hitler's ignorance. [/b] Air power was certainly a factor and the Luftwaffe was created as a tactical airforce, but I think the main factor was the Panzer division as an all arms mobile combat team.
[ the Germans were acutely aware of the folly of a two front war. [/quote] Foreign policy was determined by Hitler and Hitler alone.Germany's fate was sealed when Hitler following his Lebensraum political doctrine which was openly declared in Mein Kampf and which had been called for in Germany prior to World War 1, decided to attack the Soviet Union in pursuit of this aim.The attraction of a Greater Germany and germanisation of territory up to the Ural Mountains was Hitler's priority.Further he was motivated along with the Wehrmacht on Russian Army's track record on the battlefield of World War 1.He was reported to have dismissed Russia with the observation "one only has to kick in the front door and the whole house will collapse"The correct long term strategic priorities were never to be on Hitler's agenda and these were sacrificed by this outstanding folly of his making. As far as I can ascertain, none in the Nazi Party or the Wehrmacht with any influence had any objection to Hitler's territorial ambitions.For the German senior professional soldier, Hitler was the politician who had freed the Reichswehr from the Versailles strait jacket and for the greater part of the rule of the Nazi regime were eager followers.The only exception has to be Colonel General Ludwicg Beck who as Chief of Staff attempted to curb Hitler's policy by arranging opposition to it at senior level.He failed and resigned in August 1938 after declaring that modern war should be limited through policies based on moral principles.Beck's successor,General Franz Halder went a little further with an intended resistance against and possible removal of Hitler but the plans fell by the wayside when Neville Chamberlin settled Czechoslovakia's future with the Munich Agreement.
Quick answer When Hitler was healthy in the head no one listened to him And when he started to get sick, he pointed out that no one listend to him before when he was right and this was why the Soviets won so they better listen to him now or Germany was going to lose Hitler made a very correct order when he said no one may retreat in winter 41 and to gi in instead If the nazies would have retreated in cold cold Soviet Unnion with **** supply lines and crapy equipment they would have been exterminated and just run over So it was better to stay and fight and not use up resourses to move everything back but to give time for supply lines to come to you whielst you try and hold the line Hitler also made some correct dissistions else where but i dont know where Also another thing all ex-high nazies did were to balme Hitler for everything thatwnet wrong during the war which is just wrong Hitler hade a great understanding for logistics and how far you could push the lines before they broke A much better thing would have been to wait develop the nuclear boomb nuke the soviet unnion and voila you have victory
</div><div class='quotemain'>The Graz Zeppelin was launched on 18 December 1938 & was 85-90% complete at the outbreak of war. Construction was suspended in May 1940 in order to free uo resources for U boat construction. Work was resumed on 31 May 1942 but suspended again 30 January 1943. A second carrier was planned but work proceeded very slowly so that any changes needed as a result of operational experience with Graf Zeppelin could be incorporated.[/b] Read this as a fact of ww2. Anybody else heard this or can confirm as correct? At the end of the war the ship (Zeppelin) was scuttled in the Baltic Sea to prevent it falling into the hands of the Russians. However, the Russians raised the ship and loaded it with war booty. It was being towed to a Russian port in 1947 when it capsized and sank because of an overloaded flight deck!
