A hypothetical question.

[agrims]

RR, there is one flaw with what you propose. Germany actually had quite the ground force compared to what WE even could muster. Also, the way they fought war was radically different than what the world had ever seen prior, and one that we adopted quite well. It was the Blitzkreig, and you HAVE to have the airpower aspect before the ground forces even come to the scene, as we all know playing our sub games, airplanes are bastard machines that fight in an unfair place. They have things that naval and ground don't, altitude, speed, and fear factor. Also, their target in the beginning and all along was England and the U.S., as we were the ones that caused them all the pain and suffering after WW1. Russia was the biggest threat to them, and that is why Adolf struck the peace treaty with Stalin at the breakout of the war. England was a tiny island, that depended on the sea for materials. Cut the material's and cut the people down. Russia on the other hand was vast, resource rich, and was ruled by a ruthless man who even Hitler didn't trust, (At least he didn't starve HIS OWN people.... I speak of Hitler..) Also, at the time, the U.S. wasn't much of a threat, we spoke highly against another war, and we had an entire ocean between us.

So, in the end, he would have had to have attacked Russia. He may have won had his troops been better clothed, fed, and supplied for the harsh winter. And after bringing England to their knees, he wouldn't have need for a large fleet, thus the subs were his best choice. Suprise and stealth.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by agrims

RR, there is one flaw with what you propose. Germany actually had quite the ground force compared to what WE even could muster. Also, the way they fought war was radically different than what the world had ever seen prior, and one that we adopted quite well. It was the Blitzkreig, and you HAVE to have the airpower aspect before the ground forces even come to the scene, as we all know playing our sub games, airplanes are bastard machines that fight in an unfair place. They have things that naval and ground don't, altitude, speed, and fear factor. Also, their target in the beginning and all along was England and the U.S., as we were the ones that caused them all the pain and suffering after WW1. Russia was the biggest threat to them, and that is why Adolf struck the peace treaty with Stalin at the breakout of the war. England was a tiny island, that depended on the sea for materials. Cut the material's and cut the people down. Russia on the other hand was vast, resource rich, and was ruled by a ruthless man who even Hitler didn't trust, (At least he didn't starve HIS OWN people.... I speak of Hitler..) Also, at the time, the U.S. wasn't much of a threat, we spoke highly against another war, and we had an entire ocean between us.

So, in the end, he would have had to have attacked Russia. He may have won had his troops been better clothed, fed, and supplied for the harsh winter. And after bringing England to their knees, he wouldn't have need for a large fleet, thus the subs were his best choice. Suprise and stealth.

I agree with Steve there. You didn't point out a flaw at all. Usually when people announce that they will expose a flaw, they preceed to do that. Unfortunately, what you said is so unfocused I can't really tell what you think you are saying and how it could be in conflict with what I said. And you never got around to identifying any flaw. So I'll clarify my position a bit.

Actually, as they and you should know, the US sought to limit the cost to the Germans at the Versailles Conference, lobbying strongly and unsuccessfully against overly punitive reparations. LLoyd George and Clemenceau were not dissuaded and made Wilson out to be a fool, which he was, but not on that issue.

If you have read Mein Kampf, you know that Hitler truthfully told of his disdain, yes for Jews, but also just as viciously toward the Slav slime to his east. THAT was his primary aim in Europe after securing the continent so he could operate freely. It was all those eastern Eurpoeans with too many consonants in their names that were keeping the master race from.........whatever the master race wanted to do they could do it best without Slavs mucking it all up.

Brits were Aryans just like the Germans. They were destined to rule, just as Germany was. They were brothers. The French, on the other hand, didn't take showers and thought they were tough thugs. The low countries had the misfortune of owning real estate needed to crush the French. It was no mistake that Poland was attacked first--it was the gateway to Hitler's highest goal of invading Russia. He attacked east first because that was his most important goal. What school teaches that? It's so easy and obvious but they blind their eyes and hum loudly to avoid the obvious conclusion. It isn't that these history czars can't see--they WON'T see.

So there you go. Plan before the war: Execute von Schlieffen plan and squash the low countries as collateral damage on the way to destruction of France. Ally with Spain. Western Europe secured.

Then leave minimum forces in western Europe for a full-scale invasion of Russia--public enemy #1. Not enough room in Dodge City for two totalitarian governments.

What part of that demands anything more than coastal defense submarines? NONE OF IT!

Now, inconveniently, Germany found itself at war with its natural ally, England, because of England's treaty with Poland. Then Germany, with full ability to utterly destroy the British army at Dunkirk, let them escape. It was the perfect time to declare peace, and the appeal of peace would have been irresistibly strong for the English people, many of whom admired the German state, people and even military.

Submarines, promoted by power-grabbing admirals seeking cash to build their personal glory, had sold Hitler on the submarine. These subs were scantly modified WWI U-Boats with not enough range, not enough firepower to matter, no way to fight in a way that would not bring many, many other nations who otherwise wouldn't be interested, into the war against Germany.

You see, there is a fundamental difference between the situations of island nation Great Britain and island nation Japan. Island nation Japan ships all of its supplies on Japanese bottoms. Sink Japanese supplies and nobody but Japan gives a rat's patootie!

But Britain is very different. So different that using submarines to fight her is completely inappropriate and guarantees the defeat of Germany. It's because, you see, British supplies weren't on British bottoms. No, British supplies came in on American, Canadian, Brazilian, Argentinian.......... bottoms. Can't you see that sinking those supplies is an act of war against those neutral nations? Can't you see that GUARANTEES the defeat of Germany? Can't you see that you cannot strangle England by sinking a few supplies? You make her stronger as you kill your own best commanders and men. And that is exactly what happened.

So a wolfpack of 14 toothless old submarines encounters a convoy of 1000 ships, accompanied by incredibly skilled escorts. Can this result in any significant losses? YES! But only for the submarines. The convoy cannot be significantly hurt by weapons lacking in firepower to get the job done.

Every penny and every man in the submarine navy of Germany was a tragic waste from Germany's standpoint and a great investment by Allied standards. They COULD NOT deliver victory in any event. They GUARANTEED Nazi Germany's utter defeat by bringing in insurmountable adversaries who need not have been concerned with the war.

The flaw was the man, Adolph Hitler. He was crazy. Insanity does not make decisions in its own best interest. When he agreed with Raeder and Donitz to build a submarine fleet he doomed his thousand year reich. In 1939 he was a dead man.

What kind of history program doesn't teach these fundamental facts about World War II? Did they not have you read Mein Kampf? Did you not have to read "A Man Called Intrepid?" Do they not have any historical perspective at all? It's time to question authority and start learning. The only thing you'll learn in college is what other people think and how to learn. One is invaluable and the other is of limited value.

[agrims]

Very true and valid points. And sorry for the grainy response. I've been sweating my ass off out here in Bahrain for too long today.. Adolf was a crazy man, there is no doubt about that. And the submarine war was effective for a while as the allies didn't have good asdic in the beginning.

There are many topics about the B4B and There is a consensus that had it gone on much longer, Britain would have surrendered as there was no real way out of it at the time. There was a lot of collateral damage and supplies were dwindling.

In the beginning at Dunkirk, he should have either crushed the British army or offered a peace treaty, but neither happened and he is where he is now. A dead man. A dead crazy man. The war could have ended very differently. That is fact. Also the man wasn't the only flaw. His admirals and generals were all vying for power, that and all the misinformation and deceit his own military leaders had lead him to an early and fortunately untimely grave.

Honestly, Japan had the worst odds. They should have stuck to invading China.. They were focused on the decisive battle and that never happened for them.. Anyways, I am not disagreeing with you, you merely stated in the above that he should have invested more on the ground than the sea when he had the most advance ground weaponry of the time and was complemented by air power. He was also terrified of the British fleet, and that was a big reason that they invested so heavily in subs. Also the limit on the size and makeup of his fleet didn't help!

Still would be nice to work up the OP's main topic about an alternate universe war.. As it was plausible.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by agrims

There is a consensus that had it gone on much longer, Britain would have surrendered as there was no real way out of it at the time.

Where is this consensus? Again, saying it doesn't make it so. References, please?

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Where is this consensus? Again, saying it doesn't make it so. References, please?

And what is a consensus worth, of insular scholars in the framework of historians affiliated with different universities. Their organization is one of authority, not search for the truth. Whoever presently is cock of the walk in that field controls consensus by destroying the careers of those who disagree. Same thing happens in the science community. Tow the line or get your funds strangled.

We had a consensus of opinion on how great Thomas Jefferson was, enforced by scholastic thuggery until the lid was blown off on his relationship with his slaves, relatives of his wife's family even before Thomas himself got involved. The one man with the political position and clout to destroy slavery at the birth of our nation was the one who most evilly exploited the slave system for his own profit. His own neighbor released his slaves and willed Jefferson an extraordinary sum of money (enough to buy all Jefferson's slaves and leave a good living) on the condition that Jefferson free his slaves. Jefferson refused the inheritance. Once the logjam of illegitimate authority over historical consensus was broken, so Jefferson was broken over the blatant hypocrisy of his own undeniable actions. "Master of the Mountain" is your book. Fairly written and completely devastating.

Question authority. Learn the truth for yourself. The university establishment has perverted our scientific and historical functions, turning them into medieval fiefdoms.

[vanjast]

That's the way how a lot of us feel here in ZA... about Nelson Mandela ???

No action, no talk as his ANC proceeded to rape the country, kill opposition, etc.. etc.. Not a peep from him ??

No my friends,.. that realistic history, has also been distorted and hidden from your eyes. A lot of fools still believe the lie.

[Rockin Robbins]

I guess I'll be very quiet now......Take her down!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

The one man with the political position and clout to destroy slavery at the birth of our nation was the one who most evilly exploited the slave system for his own profit.

At least he felt guilty about it...or said he did.

His own neighbor released his slaves and willed Jefferson an extraordinary sum of money (enough to buy all Jefferson's slaves and leave a good living) on the condition that Jefferson free his slaves. Jefferson refused the inheritance.

In that regard Madison was no better. Little Jemmy had a friend who chastised him for not freeing his slaves. This friend (could he be the same fellow?) sold his plantation, bought a big piece of land in Kentucky and moved the entire group there, freeing his slaves and dividing up his wealth equally among all, then working the land the same as the rest of his newly-freed fellow citizens.
James Madison, by Ralph Ketcham

[Rockin Robbins]

Jefferson's neighbor knew that just freeing his slaves in Virginie would cause problems, probably involving the newly freed slaves being rounded up and reenslaved or worse. So took all his slaves on a boat north across the Ohio River. On the other shore he simply announced that every man, woman and child was now a free human being and that they could accompany him if they wished and he would treat them as equals.

The result was the founding of the state of Indiana, and he was first governor. Jefferson declined to follow his example. Two opportunities (of many) for Jefferson to show the meaning of the words "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." But now he was older and knew better... No wonder Marquis de Lafayette disowned him. Jefferson was a despicable human being who freely and knowingly chose the dark side.

[Admiral Halsey]

WW2 wasn't like WW1 in regards to the submarine force. If Dönitz had the 300 subs he wanted from the outset Germany would have most likely won the Battle of Atlantic. Plus the American public was super isolationist.(If the Panay incident didn't make them go to war what makes you think that a couple of accidental sinkings of American merchants would?)

[vanjast]

Adolph was not as crazy as you think..

He was a very perceptive military strategist with regard to blitzkrieg and identified goals and targets precisely.

His downfall as a military strategist, and in general, was that he had no Plan-B (or C) if Plan-A failed. Allied spying intelligence saw to it that most of his Plan-A's failed.
That and his alter-ego which would eventually bring him into conflict with his generals, further damaging his military abilities

[BrucePartington]

Mainly Hitler wanted to quiet down the western European countries as not to repeat Germany's mistake in WWI - two war fronts. A means to an end.
Sir Winston Churchill denied him just that.

Rudolph Hess did not fly to Scotland because he was mad, as both sides claimed at the time. He flew there in an attempt at negotiating peace with the UK. Before the war both countries had a reciprocal admiration to some degree.
An interesting book on this subject is "The Hitler/Hess deception", from Martin Allen. I cannot vouch for the author's claims, but they do seem plausible.

When Hitler said "we need breathing room", he was thinking of Ukraine and its rich resources. After all he knew the concept of Geopolitics. And hence the Afrika Korps attempt at crossing the Suez, since things were starting to bog down as they draw closer to Stalingrad, the final gateway to his main goal.
And the reason why both contenders fought to last bullet, the last brick standing, for every yard that lead to the Volga.
Had Von Paulus crossed the Volga, the whole war in Europe would have had a very different outcome. USSR war machine would collapse due to loss of important industrial centres, and more importantly, due to loosing vital resources to the Germans. Oil, food, mineral resources. All things that would enable Germany to become fully autonomous -Geopolitics.

Which leads me to believe that if Hitler and Hess had succeeded in negotiating peace with the UK, Hitler would have easily bagged Ukraine. No waste of military resources in Western Europe and North Africa.

When the German forces invaded Poland in 1939, they cut "The Polish Corridor". It was called a corridor for a reason. Operation Barbarossa was the centrepiece of the whole thing.
And while we're at it, the German highways were built with the fast transfer of troops in mind.

It's all about resources, it always is.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

WW2 wasn't like WW1 in regards to the submarine force. If Dönitz had the 300 subs he wanted from the outset Germany would have most likely won the Battle of Atlantic. Plus the American public was super isolationist.(If the Panay incident didn't make them go to war what makes you think that a couple of accidental sinkings of American merchants would?)

To actually hurt Britain they would have had to sink HUNDREDS of American ships, not just a couple. Do the math: 300 subs, all at sea (impossible--at most 100 could have been out at a time) against a 1000 ship convoy swarming with escorts. Huge battle with spectacular success for the Germans and half the ships are sunk (highly unlikely).

Now there are no subs left to engage the next 1000 ship convoy leaving in 7 days. Even during the most spectacular success the Germans had we produced more shipping than they sank. They were destroying incredible tonnage and were losing ground horribly. Read Admiral Daniel Gallery's book on capturing the U-505. The math never worked for the Germans.

The only possible loser was Germany. Not only that but the wolfpack method itself was a fatal flaw, broadcasting the positions of every submarine on a daily basis. It was child's play to stay away from most of the submarines, so it would have been impossible to attack a 1000 ship convoy with 300 subs. They would have been scattered all over the Atlantic to be sunk, one by one, or if all together would have been easily avoided.

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

To actually hurt Britain they would have had to sink HUNDREDS of American ships, not just a couple. Do the math: 300 subs, all at sea (impossible--at most 100 could have been out at a time) against a 1000 ship convoy swarming with escorts. Huge battle with spectacular success for the Germans and half the ships are sunk (highly unlikely).

Now there are no subs left to engage the next 1000 ship convoy leaving in 7 days. Even during the most spectacular success the Germans had we produced more shipping than they sank. They were producing incredible tonnage and were losing ground horribly. Read Admiral Daniel Gallery's book on capturing the U-505. The math never worked for the Germans.

The only possible loser was Germany. Not only that but the wolfpack method itself was a fatal flaw, broadcasting the positions of every submarine on a daily basis. It was child's play to stay away from most of the submarines, so it would have been impossible to attack a 1000 ship convoy with 300 subs. They would have been scattered all over the Atlantic to be sunk, one by one, or if all together would have been easily avoided.

You still have one problem. Hitler had forbid any attacks on neutral shipping.(Especially American shipping.) Plus the U-Boats very nearly brought Britain to it's knees during the first "Happy time." So don't say that the U-Boat force wouldn't have defeated Britain when most every historian say that if Hitler had put more into his U-Boats the war could have turned out very different.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

You still have one problem. Hitler had forbid any attacks on neutral shipping.(Especially American shipping.) Plus the U-Boats very nearly brought Britain to it's knees during the first "Happy time." So don't say that the U-Boat force wouldn't have defeated Britain when most every historian say that if Hitler had put more into his U-Boats the war could have turned out very different.

Hitler knew that in order to have any chance to strangle Britain, he would have to sink neutral shipping. Historians base their positions on a quote from Churchill saying that the only thing he feared was the U-Boats. But what Churchill said, was said for public consumption. We cannot rely on the truth of his position, as it was a strategic ploy.

Churchill's long-range war plan was to secure victory by bringing the US into the war. The best way to do that would be to encourage Germany's use of U-Boats, and that, in fact is what he did by crying wolf(pack). I don't know why nobody has questioned the accuracy and purpose of his statement there, but somebody needs to. I say this was a classic case of misdirection used by a master of the craft. And it's still working on us today!

That is also why Churchill talked Roosevelt into the lend-lease program with all those obsolete four-stacker destroyers. It put us into undeclared war with Germany with American ships and sailors in peril. How long before a German sub, under attack from a ship it was forbidden to retaliate against said "better alive than dead" and sank one? These too were pawns in Churchill's victory plans. He didn't just have plan A. He also had plan B, C, D & E.

This included an alternate British government installed in New York City in 1938. It included cultivating a very close relationship with Roosevelt, causing him to do things forbidden by the constitution, against the laws, discovery of which would have suddenly and surely brought about Roosevelt's impeachment and conviction. Yes, Roosevelt had to break the law to save western civilization. And he threw in with the correct side! It's a miracle!

No, without sinking neutral shipping there was no way to starve Britain. A small minority of their supplies were on British bottoms. Actually threatening to succeed meant actually ensuring defeat. So Hitler pulled the trigger anyway. Just like he did in the bunker. Think about it!