Author Topic: Northern empire-theoretical discuss (Read 3138 times)

Ghosth · « **Reply #30 on:** May 03, 2005, 01:40:13 PM »

Pongo pretty much said it all. And come to think of it, summed it up pretty nicely too.

Agent009, take the time to put your ego, etc aside and reread this.

(Pongo said) You throw out one lined hair brained concepts for german domination based on changed stratagy and then dont like it when people try to explain the real constraints that were in place for the Germans in ww2.

If you want positive discussion then put another 20 minutes into describing how your scenario is possible and what assumptions are inherant in your scenario and how those assumptions impact the scenario itself. (End quote)

This is the heart of the matter right here in a nutshell.

Yes we can discuss "what if" as regards to WWII. I've been thinking about the same thing in regards to Pearl Harbour for years.

Put you have to put everything into perspective. The Japanese can't take Pearl without robbing resources needed elsewhere.

Same holds for Germany. They had limited resources, and were surrounded by enemys.

Perhaps Hitler could have waited to attack Russia and worked on England instead. Fact remains he did NOT have the ships, the landing craft, the amphibious vehicles, or the WILL to do so.

Actually Hitler was lucky to have gotten Norway, England was just a bit slow reading the signs & reacting. A week difference could have seen major changes. England might have gained a stronger foothold, and put the majority of WWII battles being fought in Norway.

That was "Close" enough in terms of timing, and forces involved that it could have gone either way.

Germany did at one point have England on the ropes. The LW was attacking the Brit Airfields and Comand and control was loosing effectiveness rapidly. Then they shifted their attention to Radar & London, gave the RAF a chance to bounce back again.

Now THAT is a decision that could have changed the war.

Granted England suffered under the Blitz, but do you really think churchill would have surrendered?

"We will fight them on the beaches, etc"

But just to say "England surrendered" is unrealistic, and brings nothing to the table to discuss.

WMLute · « **Reply #31 on:** May 03, 2005, 03:03:23 PM »

[edited for lameness]

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #32 on:** May 03, 2005, 04:17:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by agent 009

As for your assumation that it is Impossible to invade England as the distance was too great, well they did ship 1.393 Panzers across Med, with 149 lost. The med is farther across than the areas in the above scenarios. Not to mention the German capital ships went straight through the Channel in broad daylight, which means surprise attacks on east coast of England is entirely possible. That's a polite way of saying you lack imagination.

Agent, have you ever been in that part of the ocean? I have and I'll tell you it's like another planet compared to the swimming pool of the Med. The wind howls, the seas pitch and that's on a good day. Mounting any kind of Naval operation in those waters is a serious problem. Just look what happened to the Spanish Armada when they tried to go there.

I just don't think an amphib. invasion of the British Isles is a viable plan in any sinario. The brits would not roll over like the French. Without completely crippling the Royal Navy prior to attempting this makes it unwinnable. Germany would have had to spend a whole lot of resources building a Navy that could compete with the Brits and I doubt the British would have allow that to continue unchallenged.

Britania ruled the waves, and they were damn sure going to keep it that way.

humble · « **Reply #33 on:** May 03, 2005, 04:41:06 PM »

Another factor is being ignored. The strong historical ties between Germany & England...the "royal families" were cousins and the countries general populations viewed each other much more favorably then they did the French. Remember Hitlers assent to power was supported by a population brought to its knees by what ti considered French abuses...very little popular support early on for any war against England or the Nordic countries...remember the germans went into Norway to "protect" the interests of the germanic population there. Hitler rose to power by understanding and appealing to the German desire for national pride...not only is your grasp on the military realities lacking...your grasp on the political realities is farther off.

Had Hitler simply stopped short of the invasion of France things would have diffused. The English & French had no stomach for war and the Americans were strongly isolationist. By 1941 the "quiet war" would have evolved into the "silent peace" and Hitler would have had all the time he needed.

By the way if Hitler went West & north....who would have apposed the French army rolling North into the Rhineland?

agent 009 · « **Reply #34 on:** May 03, 2005, 04:46:24 PM »

You would have said the same thing before invasion of Norway. My IQ was 142 at age 14 Pongo.

& yes I'm aware of Germany's lack of ships, that's why it is based on a different naval strategy starting in 30's which I stated at least twice above, Have no ego, only an interest in strategic discussions.

Wild Bill Guarnere.Community -> Operation Weserübung
... April 3rd, German supply ships left german harbours headed for Norway ... not sink any of the German vessels. They contiuned to ... Teaching our Students about WW2: What to include? ...forums.wildbillguarnere.co m/index.php?...&showtopic=2855&st=0 - 57k - Cached - More from this site

Humble, I'm gonna guess you meant east & north. As regards France running into Rhineland, well nothing really execpt their desire to not go to war. Again the scenario is based on Polish issue being handled differently, ie Danzig being bypassed or perhaps allowing Russians to attack 1st, then saying occupation of east half of Poland is a defensive bulwark against further Russian aggression. Again, use the imagination. The idea is to avoid war with west as long or if possible completely. If not possible, then plan for attack on England & Iceland as well. The question then becomes would France & England declare war over Norway? with no war being declared prior over Poland.

Again, you must understand I am not stating anythng in concrete terms, it is what is known as a discussion. Theoretical discussion.

I also stated above Iceland & England would be hardest nuts to crack. Do you guys read?

humble · « **Reply #35 on:** May 03, 2005, 05:32:06 PM »

Hmmm last I saw England was West and Iceland Northwest of Germany...or am I wrong here?

France is Germany's natural enemy...they had fought multiple wars and France had built the great farce er wall at tremendous expense. They also had a very large tank force (larger then Germany) and enough young aggressive commanders that would have agitated for war once Germany went to war vs England. Once the French navy went into action supporting England the French would have seized the opportunity to regain the disputed territory+some.

Germany didnt have anywhere near the military supremacy you imagine. Your alternative would actually create a better opportunity for the french army to come into play as an organized force instead of being suprised and "rolled" up. Remember that the assault on France was concieved well before the war and tailored to the specifics of both the military and political realities very well....easily one of the 2 or 3 great "master strokes" of all time. Instead your leaving the single largest tank army (at the time) poised on Germany's southern border. Destroying that army is what enabled the entire war to proceed. Instead you match strength (the royal navy) vs weakness and commit the german army to a war of attrition while leaving its major historical foes (Russia & France) at large...if and its a big if...Germany had even successfully landed forces in England resupplying (the Army) and subduing the island would have been an almost impossible undertaking. Now imagine the english navy steaming to france with the remnants of the english Army and now you have the "free English" navy, airforce and army operating directly on the german boarder while the cream of the wermacht is tied down in a guerilla war in England unable to even leave do to the french/english blockade. I'd say the war would have lasted 6 months to a year before Germany falls...

thrila · « **Reply #36 on:** May 03, 2005, 05:43:46 PM »

agent009 i'm sorry but they are right. Your theoretical strategic discussions have to be in context to have any merit to them. You have to take into consideration other factors than simply "what if Germany conquered X,Y,Z".

Pongo · « **Reply #37 on:** May 03, 2005, 07:09:08 PM »

Agent.
Your not a good medium for such a discussion.
I was discussing this very reasonably with you and suddenly we start getting "dont talk to me like Im an idiot"
Then your flailing all over the place.

How the germans could take Norway indicates to you how they would take England. Why not get 100 really long range Ju52s and take America the same way then?

What you should learn from the invasion of Norway is that the German fleet was pretty much whiped out by just acomplishing that.
German Fleet Available on June 30, 1940
Name Effective Remarks
Battle cruisers Nil (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau damaged)
Pocket Battleships Nil (Scheer under repair. Lutzow damaged)
Heavy Cruiser Hipper -
Light Cruiser Koln, (Nurnberg Leipzig and Emden damaged)
Destroyers Schoemann, lody, Galster, Inn (Six others under repair)
Torpedo Boats Nineteen Six others under repair. Eight new craft under construction

The Germans lost a Heavy cruiser, 2 light cruisers, 10 destroyers, and 8 Uboats in Norway.
They had only two ships operational larger then a destroyer. One heavy and one light cruiser. with 2 destroyers to escort them.
How much do you think the Royal Navy had left?

And your northern empire scheme would depend on them allready takeing those casualties! they have to invade England with what they have left.

agent 009 · « **Reply #38 on:** May 03, 2005, 08:07:26 PM »

Pongo you were not discussing it reasonably, Go back & read your 1st post, it was snide to say the least.

Humble, I did not say Russia was ignored, I mentioned a fight over Baltic with them, & yes I'm well aware that Joe had an interest in east europe, but he wouldn't be ready til late 42, early 43, & central europe & scandinavia could well be conquered by 40.

Yes France had the Maginot line, but they were very timid in 40 & waited til Germany attacked which demonstrates their reluctance to fight. If Poland hadn't happened, they had no provocation to attack Germany, execpt perhaps over Norway.

Westy · « **Reply #39 on:** May 03, 2005, 08:09:53 PM »

"My IQ was 142 at age 14..."

Which counts for diddley squat when you have the personality of a tree stump and lack an ounce of common sense.

agent 009 · « **Reply #40 on:** May 03, 2005, 08:13:08 PM »

Westy shares his sphincteresque personality once again. Is it a compulsion disorder perhaps? can't hold it in?

LTARokit · « **Reply #41 on:** May 03, 2005, 10:13:28 PM »

Geez...........

humble · « **Reply #42 on:** May 03, 2005, 11:11:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by agent 009
Pongo you were not discussing it reasonably, Go back & read your 1st post, it was snide to say the least.

Humble, I did not say Russia was ignored, I mentioned a fight over Baltic with them, & yes I'm well aware that Joe had an interest in east europe, but he wouldn't be ready til late 42, early 43, & central europe & scandinavia could well be conquered by 40.

Yes France had the Maginot line, but they were very timid in 40 & waited til Germany attacked which demonstrates their reluctance to fight. If Poland hadn't happened, they had no provocation to attack Germany, execpt perhaps over Norway.

And your basing this on what....?

I get the feeling you have no firm grasp of geopolitical realities...as mentioned above the attack on Poland generated a state of war. So attacking Norway or England wouldnt trigger the same reaction?

You really feel that France would abandon its primary alliance so it would be standing alone against Hitler two years later. Your demonstrating no grasp of either military or political reality here. Would Germanyhave ignored France and supported Italy in Africa...about as realistic.

While the French intent was to avoid defeat initially, the German strategy in 1940 sought to achieve a swift and decisive victory over the Allies. The German High Command emphasised a preference for a short war and the importance of annihilating the Allied forces.8 After much deliberation, the Germans rationalised that the annihilation of the Allied forces could only be achieved by an outflanking manoeuvre to bypass their main defences in Belgium. This fundamental conclusion formed the basis for the German invasion plan in 1940.

Your idea entirely negates this brilliant rational and leaves what was widely viewed as the best army in the world time to regroup and recover from the stupidity of its politically driven senior leadership....
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2000/Vol26_1/3.htm

Basically your suggesting a poorly thought out course of action that had little chance of success with little or no upside in the unlikelyevent it suceeded...it would in fact isolate a significant portion of the german army from the primary battlefield while eliminating the realityof D-day...war start in 1940...over in 1941...

agent 009 · « **Reply #43 on:** May 04, 2005, 06:06:55 AM »

As I stated above an attack on Norway was the question, would it trigger a response from France & England. Nowhere did I state that it wouln't generate a resonse. Your inferring something I haven't said.

I'm basing what I said about France on historcal fact. They didn't attack Germany in 40, that's why it was called the phoney war. Neither did I say France would abandon its primary alliance. again inferring something I haven't said.

As for little chance of success, I have to disagree. Central europe did fall as I have described. Finland would likely join with Germany as it did in the war during baltic skirmish. Sweden might go as Czechlosovakia did & Norway goes as it did.

As for your point of there being little or no upside. Um control of central europe & scandinavia has no upside? The natural resources alone represent an upside.Control of The ports of Norway is not an upside?

This then leaves the question of whether France & England declare war over Norway. If so, then Germany is back to square 1.

Out of curiosity, is it possible to present your point of view without making somewhat negative comments like; you have no real grasp of geopolitical realities? Or is it some sort of internet etiquette that I'm not familiar with, squeezing in an insult as prereqisite to making ones point?

Westy · « **Reply #44 on:** May 04, 2005, 07:16:02 AM »

Way to go Idaho. Keep proving my point!

(anyone else besides me hear the Vonage ad theme playing when reading Agent 009s posts?)