General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
What ifs.
Posted by:
SuperKraut
()
Date: May 16, 2001 09:42AM
<HTML>Of course the XXI discussion is a \"What if\", any change you make in the way things actually happened is a \"What if\". However, \"What ifs\" fall into several categories in terms of plausibility. The most plausible are the ones involving some minor change which then changes the outcome of a battle. At the other end of the spectrum are violations of the technical state of the art (anything which is 20 years ahead of its time) or major changes is the zeitgeist. Bringing the XXI and similar weapons a few years forward is technically very plausible. All that is required is competent strategic analysis which identifies the need. The problem was that the last German leader who could do really good strategic analysis was Bismarck.
You have provided 5 valid points which show that the Nazi leadership (Hitler) was incompetent in doing grand strategy, in fact what was going on was the height of malpractice. Hitler was great orator, a mediocre gambler and a terrible strategist. The last military operation which was competently planned was Fall Gelb. After that, Hitler thought he was a military genius and acted accordingly, however he failed to see that Sichelschnitt was Mannstein\'s idea and not his.
Meddling in military operations was not his only fault. Hitler also failed grandiosely in predicting the British reaction to the invasion of Poland. He completely missed the change in public and government opinion in Britain after the invasion of rest Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Not keeping a low profile after Munich was Hitler\'s first major foreign policy blunder. This could have been avoided if he had listened to his professional diplomats and I do not mean the champagne salesman (Ribbentrop).
The real \"What if\" in any Germany wins or survives WWII scenario revolves around the presence or absence of Hitler. They are all fundamentally non-Hitler or Hitler assassination scenarios. It is impossible to write a plausible \"What if\" in which Hitler wins the war. In fact, if he had not been saved by Speer, his only competent minister, Hitler would probably have lost the war a year earlier.
One more comment about your point 1 regarding the naval building program. I presume you mean Plan Z, a most ridiculous, unimaginative and unfeasible plan which clearly shows the lack of a realistic naval strategy. Plan Z was a me too strategy with no technical advancements. It was nothing more than preparing for Jutland II. Germany simply did not have the resources to go head to head with the Royal Navy and most likely the US Navy. The only viable German naval strategy was ocean denial and that could best be done with U-boats. A proper appreciation of radar would have made the design of these U-boats obvious.
\">…because no one expected war to start in 1939.<\" Not so as written. It should have read \"…Hitler and his inner circle…\" There were quite a few people in the middle and upper levels of the foreign office and the military who did expect a British intervention, but their view was not wanted.
Your \"BTW\" comment on improved British ASW efforts is often asked, but it violates the zeitgeist rule. British public and government opinion in the 1930s was not focused on the next war, especially not after the experience of WWI. Therefore major military spending was not feasible. The British had state of the art ASW technology during the 1930s, so there was not that much which needed to be improved. It was more a question of number of assets.
Regards,
SuperKraut
</HTML>
You have provided 5 valid points which show that the Nazi leadership (Hitler) was incompetent in doing grand strategy, in fact what was going on was the height of malpractice. Hitler was great orator, a mediocre gambler and a terrible strategist. The last military operation which was competently planned was Fall Gelb. After that, Hitler thought he was a military genius and acted accordingly, however he failed to see that Sichelschnitt was Mannstein\'s idea and not his.
Meddling in military operations was not his only fault. Hitler also failed grandiosely in predicting the British reaction to the invasion of Poland. He completely missed the change in public and government opinion in Britain after the invasion of rest Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Not keeping a low profile after Munich was Hitler\'s first major foreign policy blunder. This could have been avoided if he had listened to his professional diplomats and I do not mean the champagne salesman (Ribbentrop).
The real \"What if\" in any Germany wins or survives WWII scenario revolves around the presence or absence of Hitler. They are all fundamentally non-Hitler or Hitler assassination scenarios. It is impossible to write a plausible \"What if\" in which Hitler wins the war. In fact, if he had not been saved by Speer, his only competent minister, Hitler would probably have lost the war a year earlier.
One more comment about your point 1 regarding the naval building program. I presume you mean Plan Z, a most ridiculous, unimaginative and unfeasible plan which clearly shows the lack of a realistic naval strategy. Plan Z was a me too strategy with no technical advancements. It was nothing more than preparing for Jutland II. Germany simply did not have the resources to go head to head with the Royal Navy and most likely the US Navy. The only viable German naval strategy was ocean denial and that could best be done with U-boats. A proper appreciation of radar would have made the design of these U-boats obvious.
\">…because no one expected war to start in 1939.<\" Not so as written. It should have read \"…Hitler and his inner circle…\" There were quite a few people in the middle and upper levels of the foreign office and the military who did expect a British intervention, but their view was not wanted.
Your \"BTW\" comment on improved British ASW efforts is often asked, but it violates the zeitgeist rule. British public and government opinion in the 1930s was not focused on the next war, especially not after the experience of WWI. Therefore major military spending was not feasible. The British had state of the art ASW technology during the 1930s, so there was not that much which needed to be improved. It was more a question of number of assets.
Regards,
SuperKraut
</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
elektro
|
tony | 05/12/2001 11:29AM |
|
RE: elektro
|
J.T. McDaniel | 05/12/2001 08:25PM |
|
RE: elektro
|
parade | 05/13/2001 08:37AM |
|
Effect of elektroboats
|
SuperKraut | 05/14/2001 01:01PM |
|
RE: Effect of elektroboats
|
kurt | 05/14/2001 04:31PM |
|
What ifs.
|
SuperKraut | 05/16/2001 09:42AM |
|
RE: Germay wins in the West without hi-tech
|
Leyburn | 05/19/2001 07:00PM |
|
Germay?
|
Leyburn | 05/20/2001 07:17PM |