Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
He could have won the war.
If he would only have wanted to, that is. This is the absolute and irrefutable proof that is not even kept secret. It's a well-researched topic. To give an outline: Germany was at the time far superior military power to any other nation in the entire world. The beginning of WW2 proves this beyond doubt (with the exception of Battle of Britain and Dunkerque, which were the first signs that there is something rotten in German high command). Hitler swept thru Poland and France with ease in a matter of days/weeks, and delivered a crushing blow to Stalin's USSR in summer of 1941. This was the moment when the strategically sound decision would be to retreat, reinforce the defences and strike on Suez to gain absolute control of the Mediterannean and an unobstructed access path to oilfields in the Middle East (a delayed attack on USSR is considered a more sound plan, giving priority to securing the oil supply). There would be no need for any aggressive warfare anymore, Britain would be blockaded and starved to submission, and Russia would probably desintegrate from the inside, seeing the Germans as liberators rather than the enemy. America would not even think of engaging and would be economically defeated in the long run. Every somewhat capable general would be very aware of this. Rumors are that Hitler never listened to his generals.
When you let this information sink in, it becomes painfully obvious to you that Hitler made all the 'alleged' mistakes very deliberately. Among these are:
- fighting on both fronts at the same time
- cancelling weapon development programs that could have had a massive effect on the balance of the forces (most notably, he cancelled the development of jet interceptors and assault rifles),
- gross strategic errors (Dunkerque, never allowed retreat, obsession with Stalingrad, Battle of Britain, failure to mass-produce fighters and long-range bombers and focusing on rather useless fighter-bombers instead, ill-prepared invasion/occupation of Russia without winter gear), and more.
The list goes on and on. There never was any intent to actually win the war. It is simply not possible that a man with good intentions and arguably high intelligence would manage to pile up mistake after mistake like this, especially when you consider that until 1940 Hitler played a perfect game and made NO ERRORS at all! He accomplished two things:
1. flushed the jews down to Palestine, and
2. caused enormous destruction of Europe, most notably the destruction of the german nation. Hitler even encouraged the Germans to fight to the death and/or to commit suicide, when the table turned and it was obvious and inevitable that Germany will be utterly defeated. He was a wolf in sheep's clothing, and the Germans didn't notice until their army was in tatters and all was lost.
When you understand who Hitler really was, you will no longer wonder about his alleged death and disappearance. Not only Hitler, but the entire german high command made it out unscathed, it was exactly their plan from start to finish.
If I'm not wrong, the aim is to renew the Hitler cult by setting the history record straight and omitting why he was a traitor and annihilator of Germany. By the time holocaust truth surfaces and people are enraptured by a new Hitler-like savior, this information will be considered a lowly smear campaign and lying propaganda. The media always had the power to stifle dissent by shouting louder and I expect just that.
and delivered a crushing blow to Stalin's USSR in summer of 1941. This was the moment when the strategically sound decision would be to retreat
He would've been chased all the way to Berlin by a superior Soviet military machine, which it still was in 1941 in both numbers and quality. You simply can't put your feet up after winning critical battles and move on to new, tasty targets. It was Hitler himself who (correctly) postponed the move on Moscow through fear of the formations still holding out at the Kiev pocket. His generals lambasted him, he capitulated, they later admitted that he was correct.
obsession with Stalingrad
I don't really see that Hitler was 'obsessed' with Stalingrad, certainly not disproportionately to its strategical value, which it had (regardless of what professional liars like Beevor say). In fact, the only irrational acts at Stalingrad were committed by the Soviets. They were the ones who threw more men and fervor at the city than was necessary.
most notably, he cancelled the development of jet interceptors
And Patton forcibly removed emphasis on mass production and deployment on the M26 tank, in favour of the Tommy Cooker Sherman. This, arguably, delayed the fall of Germany into 1945. The point is, no-one is infallible.
So Hitler was a double agent who lost the war on purpose. Now i have heard it all.
onetruth wrote:warning :the article above contain some of the worst nonsense i have come across. Strange that it was allowed to be posted.
So Hitler was a double agent who lost the war on purpose. Now i have heard it all.
I agree it is in a bit of a garbled mode. There is also an infantile notion that Hitler made ALL of the decisions. As if there isn't institutions and channels through which work was done. Perhaps the author sits in moms basement behind a computer and thinks that's some kind of command center he operates from. Sorry, that's not how a country is run, neither was NS-Germany run that way.
Apparently there is some indicators for sabotage from within. But then have a look at the power relations in terms of economic volume and resources. Plus the geostrategical position. It's almost a miracle they came that far. Of course they still could have taken advantages like chemical warfare, but Hitler and I guess most of the generals were against this. They'd have quite some nasty stuff at their disposal and could have smoked out some besieged cities or centers of concentrated enemy power.
p.s. I did not say Hitler alone, I said Hitler plus the entire german high command.
Hitler stops at Dunkirk and so fails to capture the Anglo-French troops there but quickly captures Paris. So he's wrong.
Hitler stops at Moscow, moves south-east and so captures very numerous Soviet troops but fails to capture Moscow. So he's wrong too.
Logical? Sounds like a politically-biased story in which Hitler always needs to be wrong, no matter what he does. The guys telling this story should meet somewhere, agree on whether a leader wins wars by capturing capital cities or by capturing/annihilating enemy troops, and then come back with a consistent narrative.
The claim that "America would not even think of engaging" is naive and incorrect. Roosevelt had promised to engage America before WW2 had even begun. And his promise was not a series of empty words. That was a top priority for him and his clique. One can perhaps wonder what false flag would have been implemented to engage America if FDR's provocations had remained unanswered. But the result of FDR's aggressive policies is not in doubt.
https://s25.postimg.io/xa1lquobh/WW2_Ro ... ary_19.jpg
And about Hitler's 2-front war, one needs to forget Stalin's imminent attack and Hess' flight to UK to keep the orthodox narrative credible...
There seem to me to be two competing ideas on Hitler's "Halt Order" of May 22, 1940 (rescinded and changed to an attack order on the afternoon [?] of May 26, with German attacks beginning again on May 27).Dunkerque, which were the first signs that there is something rotten in German high command
(1) The 'Hitler's Magnanimity' Theory. That Hitler personally ordered the standing down of German forces at the last minute to allow the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) to escape by sea evacuation. There seems some evidence lending credence to this in Hitler's own writing and personal beliefs, i.e. that he really didn't want war with Britain nor did he want to deliver Britain some kind of mortal blow. Motivation: A peace overture following the (imminent) fall of France; long-term goal to fight Communism with British acquiescence, if not support.
(2) The 'Germans Stretched Thin' Theory. That the Germans were too exhausted and disorganized after twelve days of large-scale fighting and rapid advance in France (May 10 to May 22, 1940); being that respites are always wise in military affairs to secure your 'front' and so on, to prevent sudden reversals from the enemy attacking exposed units of yours; also to ensure your units are in good supply and so on. In other words, there was no secret political agenda behind the Halt Order, but run-of-the-mill military tactical considerations, especially given that Goering was promising that the Luftwaffe would finish the job and prevent a sea evacuation.
The original poster here's point, though somewhat incoherent to me, is that a third option exists, one that I had never hitherto considered, I must admit... In the poster's words, "There never was any intent [by Hitler] to actually win the war," i.e. that Hitler personally sabotaged the war effort from the very beginning to the very end and always wanted his own nation and the state he led to lose this major war. Personally I find this a deeply flawed assertion. The whole post seems highly "conspiracy-theory"-oriented.
Still, there is a coherent and good argument to be made here, that Hitler "could have won" had he not made certain mistakes (this is a topic written upon very much in the past seventy years); and it may center on Dunkirk. Hermod addressed this a bit in a post above. I will try to address it more from a more quantitative angle in the next post.
Let's say there is no Halt Order on May 22, and the Germans sweep to the coast and largely win the "race to Dunkirk." Let's say that two-thirds of British forces at Dunkirk are captured. This would make for a total loss of about 50% of the British Expeditionary Force in France in May to June 1940, instead of the 15% loss that actually occurred.
Would the loss of these extra men have turned the tide of the war? It seems hard to believe that it would have made a difference militarily. It may have politically. A humiliating loss at Dunkirk would have led to the ejection of Churchill and a peace-oriented British government? I suppose this is possible but still hard for me to believe.
Here are the numbers:
435,000: Total British forces in France by May 1940
- 68,000: Total British casualties in France during the May to June fighting, of which most were POWs. [15% of total]
- 367,000: Successfully evacuated to Britain in various evacuation operations [85% of total], the largest being from Dunkirk.
-- 224,000: British troops successfully evacuated from Dunkirk, late May to early June 1940 (plus 140,000 French and Belgians). If two-thirds of the British at Dunkirk had been captured outright (i.e. a one-time netting of 150,000 men), as the rosiest of No-May-22-Halt-Order scenarios might have it, that makes a total loss for the BEF of 50% in less than a month in France; a military humiliation,a setback, but hardly irreversible. See troop strength totals for British Army by year:
...893,000: British Army personnel, September 1939, of which professional, regular-army soldiers numbered 225,000. [Source]
1,100,000: British Army personnel circa December 1939
1,650,000: British Army personnel in June 1940
2,200,000: British Army personnel in June 1941
2,950,000: British Army personnel in June 1945 (peak)
As you can see, a "two-thirds-personnel-loss at Dunkirk, late May 1940" scenario would have meant a loss of less than 10% of Britain's armed forces at the time (150,000 potentially captured at Dunkirk / 1,650,000 in uniform at the time, with over 500,000 more in uniform a year later).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest