For that you win this! :yep:
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...Avonsmouse.jpg

Me wants! :rock:

Realistically, Hitler could never have invaded and conquered Great Britain, and nor could he ever have won in the east, especially while the Allies were supplying the Soviets.

Hitler would've won the war if. . .
 

Actually Hitler was fighting God's chosen people (not: holy people) and therefor doomed to failure.

Re: Hitler would've won the war if. . .
 

All evil is at some point or another doomed to failure.

I don't want to go off on a tangent but define "holy".

@ joea

Pls Check your PMs

Regards

CCIP wrote:
The question about the russian weather is one of the biggest in WWII history.I really don't know what would be the conseguences of a swifter attack.For sure,i don't beleive that the Germans could occupy all Russia.Also,the Russian reserves from the asiatic part of Russia were much more accustomed to harsh climate than the German troops.I do think that the Germans MAYBE could have taken Moscow (they arrived to Tula if i m not mistaken,about 20km outside Moscow).It is known that the Germans had terrible problems with their heavy equipment,which was the heart of their war machine and success.Maybe the war would have lasted longer,maybe Russia would sign a truce,who knows.

Anyway,it seems that the Germans had much confidence on themselves in case of better weather.I encountered this by luck:

Italy's entry into the war has been nothing but a disaster for us. If the Italians hadn't attacked Greece and needed our help, the war would have taken a different course. We could have anticipated the Russian cold by weeks and conquered Leningrad and Moscow. There would have then been no Stalingrad.

Leni Riefenstahl in conversation with Adolf Hitler, 30 March 1944
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...0/ai_n15957576

For those who don't know,Riefenstahl was the mediatic mastermind behind Hitler's film propaganda,staging the party rallies etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl

Where my stepdad has moved to in the far north (Murmansk region) it is winter 9 months of the year, it is also one of the most strategic places of importance to capture, capture that you have the entire russian navy almost.

Re: Hitler would've won the war if. . .
 

I agree with that! For a change. :yep:

U-214, back at ya with a PM.

Re: Hitler would've won the war if. . .
 

What?

That evil is doomed to failure?

Or that you don't want to go off on a tangent? :)

Or both? :P

To quote Hitler "We only got to kick in the door and the whole rotten system will come crashing down"

Hitler only planed a lightning attack and believed it would be all over before winter, so there was no planning for winter clothing. Another one of many mistakes.

True how the heck could German troops do that, which they tried and failed it always comes down to logistics. The Soviet army in the north and centre was decimated and their numbers were replaced from Eastern Russia and Siberian winter troops.

Sorry no impossible first they had to deal with the Kiev pocket after dealing with Kiev and getting back on course they stood no chance. Some 90,000 Soviet troops in Moscow and ready to defend Moscow to the last bullet. German tanks few in number broken down and in need of repair, and of course the winter weather.

The Germans were only one third mechanise and they relied on horses to move their equipment, bad planning again Russia had a lack of a road net work. The weather in spring and autumn turn the ground into quagmire and the Germans got bogged down and in winter equipment broke down. As for Stalin coming to some sort of peace with Hitler that went right out the window after German troops failed to take Moscow.

Far too much they fail in the planning stages of Barbarossa

Italy should had stayed out they were useless waging war / Leningrad was not a prime target for Hitler, Moscow was.

yet again steed you deal in absolute's " theres no way " well im afraid many battle's in history have hung on the smallest things like i said according to your rules gemany shouldnt have been able to defeat france and the belgians and the BEF they had more supply's men tanks adequate air support so how did germany accomplish that? by your rule that the combatant with the better logistics win every time ! no so my friend classic example a fleet crossing 8000 miles to retake the falklands against land based air support and entrecnched soildiers by your rules the uk shouldnt have been able to do that but it did because morale tactics and training can overcome large obsticals , another example warterloo napoleon had more men more supplies yet he failed to defeat wellington why? theres more to the equation than more men more tanks more supplies = win

Not my rules facts. I suggest you start reading about the Eastern Front and understand it. ;)

In the case of 1940 Hitler's army had been tested in Poland and they used a new method of war fare Blitzkrieg and a very daring plan to come through the Ardennes. And any way it was only us the British who put up a real fight unlike the French.

In the case of Waterloo Napoleon won a tactical victory until Blucher came on the scene and turn it around.

Re: Hitler would've won the war if. . .
 

Both. :rotfl:

Re: Hitler would've won the war if. . .
 

I would define "holy" as: without sins.

And I would not mind to go off on a tango with you...
:D

Re: Hitler would've won the war if. . .
 

Lets not forget uncle Bush :rotfl:

Re: Hitler would've won the war if. . .
 

From the "Dictonary of TLAM. Volume 2"...

Re: Hitler would've won the war if. . .
 

Conclusion: a hero is somebody who makes others holy...
:rotfl:

Re: Hitler would've won the war if. . .
 

Reminds me of another line she said:

"Knew a man who had a hole clean through his whole shoulder, once. Used to keep a spare hankie in there."
-Zoë

:D

STeed old friend you dont seem to get the point your too ridged in the idea that whatever could have happened germany couldn't have beaten russia , in fact you made my point in the napoleon part what if grouchy had joined napoleon insted of aimlessly following the prussians ? all im saying that there are to many variable's in how an battle is won to say in different circumstances that germany could never have won , you seems to reject any speculation out of hand that things could have turned out differently . napoleon was beaten fair and square by a much inferior force , all that i really am saying that sometimes no matter how much of an advantage u have in suplies and men logistics and weaponry you will at some stage get a spanking history is repleat with stories of stronger bigger more advanced armys losing because u can for definte caculate who is going to win or lose on the strength of logistics numbers and indeed as shown weather


p.s indeed to reinforce my point every book and documentery ive seen and read written and presented by proven experts in military history have all said that the russian campaign was a close run thing in 1941 ,42 and indeed the the point when germany really lost it was kursk up til that point much of the campaign had went germanys way