I'll let Dunkirk lay for now and address that of which I'm *sure*.
What Hitler did not know, is that he had come very close indeed to finishing
off the RAF by concentating his bombing on RAF installations and coastal
defences. While he didn't have the strategic bombers, the Stuka and JU-88
had indeed delivered enough of a blow to the RAF that had Hitler *not*
switched to bombing London, he could have finsished off the RAF in a couple
more months. This is not speculation on my part, merely an extrapolation of
the ongoing success against Britians air defence system. Yes it was costly,
but it was *working*.
Had the Germans stuck to "the plan" they would have rendered the RAF
innefective and then been able to launch the planned "Operation Sea Lion"
which was the reverse of our D-day cross-channel invasion. Given the weight
they could have thrown at that (as opposed to attacking Russia) there is
little doubt that Nazi occupied England could have come about just as Nazi
occupied France did.
I know "why" they started in on London, I just hugely dissagree with the
tactic. In order to bomb London they took a lot of heat off the RAF,
allowing it to recover.
Now tell me? What good would all those B17's have done us without a ready
staging area in England? And regardless of our "eventual" intentions to get
more involved in Europe, the fact is we let Britian flap in the breeze too
long as it was, and we would not have been able to react quickly enough to
stop Hitler from crossing the channel.
I can easily see a scenario where if Hitler took England correctly, left
Russia alone, and Japan bombed the US at Pearl (holding our interest) that
he could have easily consolodated his power in Europe. Perhaps *then* he
could have still gone after Russia too - taking enough time to do it right.
It might well have come down to "Who comes up with The Bomb 1st" as we in
the US could not have mounted anywhere near as effective an attack on Europe
without England.
Yes, it's easy to armchair quarterback it now..........
-W (Dunkirk another time)
"DSK" wrote in message
...
Clams Canino wrote:
I could make the argument that Hitler defeated himself.
He didn't do himself (or the rest of Germany) much good as a strategist,
that's
for sure.
1. The "miracle at Dunkirk" Hitler let the English all get away to
fight
another day - on purpose.
That wasn't Hitler's call and IMHO they did not let the English (and a
large
number of the French also) get away on purpose. From what I've read it was
a
sort of turf battle between Von Runstedt and Goering, thrown on top of
mixed up
communications, plus a good bit of logistic snafu as the Germans had
advanced a
long long way in a short time, and their supply lines had not caught up.
2. Attacking Russia when he did.
yep, one of the classic blunders. "Never get involved in a land war in
Asia."
Also failing to consult with or get
support from his Ally Japan in going after Russia. Russia wasn't a
player
till he made them a player. Russia could have waited, it was
*imperative*
however that he either take England or force it into a treaty.
Agreed. It would have been smarter for Hitler to bargain with the Sovets
for oil
rather than attack them. However, if he'd been smarter the war would have
been
longer and costlier for all.
4. The battle of Britian. He could have won it - had he not concentated
on
London. He had a RAF almost to it's knees and didn't follow through.
Having
Britain as a staging area was a big factor in the Allied victory.
I disagree here as well. The Germans did not have such good long range
fighter
aircraft, nor strategic bombers. For one thing, they didn't have the
industrial
capacity to build such aircraft *in addition to* what they were already
building, and which they very much needed. Consider this, Boeing started
work on
the B-17 Flying Fortress in 1934. The Germans certainly had the know-how
to
build planes of similar capability, but they didn't have the time to
jump-start
a bomber project when they realized they needed one. Big strategic
boo-boo....
remember, always pick a job you have the tools for!
And the list goes on. Hitlers psychopathic arrogance cost him WW2, that
and
IMHO a subconscious "need to fail" he was quite self destructive.
He certainly was arrogant, and a psychopath. It's a damn shame that he
ever rose
to a position of authority at all. For him to try and form war plans from
wishful thinking and pipe dreams must have really frustrated a lot of the
German
generals.
IMHO the Allies had a big edge all the way along in WW2, from manpower to
industrial capacity to oil reserve to strategic planning. We still might
have
lost, it was not a "sure thing".... very little really is!
DSK