Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Poland 1939 Was Hitler Right

Im not sure that version is 100% true or just another story to badmouth the Nazis/Adolf.
The UK had massive debts in the 30s (including defaulting in 1934), Germany wasnt the only country living on the never-never.
The implication of that is that neither side had an option but to start a war, and I suppose there is an element of truth In that. Either way it kick started economies. But I still think that the Ribbentrop pact was the catalyst. After all a zone for the Soviets was a part of it, the Generals allegedly never knew about this being quite surprised at Soviet soldiers turning up.
 
alas for the Germans, their scientists weren’t using ‘Jew Science’ as Hitler called it, and got their calculations off by an order of a couple of magnitudes.

the ‘German Bomb’ was a huge thing, many tonnes, and wouldn't have gone critical, just fizzled like a big dirty bomb.
That’s not the point, it was technology, even if impractical. We mustn’t let the current knowledge and mindset cloud the mentality of the time . Hitler needed raw materials. Stalin wanted technology and the best there was. Part of the spying issue isn’t just the blueprints it’s about meshing what the enemy knows with what you have.
 
alas for the Germans, their scientists weren’t using ‘Jew Science’ as Hitler called it, and got their calculations off by an order of a couple of magnitudes.

the ‘German Bomb’ was a huge thing, many tonnes, and wouldn't have gone critical, just fizzled like a big dirty bomb.


In the end the Germans never managed a sustained chain reaction or developed an effective method of Uranium enrichment..

 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
If you don't mind a bit of willing suspension of disbelief on a key plot point (time travel), The Foresight War is a good read about a WW2 that might have been if better/more informed decisions were made in a timely way from the 30's onwards.
1591268544826.png
 
I think you are right. Delaying the war after already triggering re-armament in Britain and France just sees the allies immeasurably stronger by the time it kicks off.

Maybe the BEF goes to France with 1,000,000 men and 6 lbers instead of 200k and 2 lbers, the RAF has Spit MkV, better radar, heavy bombers and jets further down the development track, RN has extensive radar, more escorts, refurbished capital ships and possibly more carriers, HMG has had three years in which to cripple the German economy through economic sanctions and diplomacy.

Perhaps France even overcomes its internal problems, changes government and comes to the field at its true strength and potential.


Etc.

This thread could run...
Don’t forget, a lot of equipment, weapon and vehicle advances come about due to the necessity of war. If we hadn’t have got involved early and realized our deficiencies, chances are the politicians wouldn’t have approved anything anyway
 
If you don't mind a bit of willing suspension of disbelief on a key plot point (time travel), The Foresight War is a good read about a WW2 that might have been if better/more informed decisions were made in a timely way from the 30's onwards.
View attachment 479346
1st thing - get rid of that width restriction on british armour related to rail tunnels - straight away we can up gun effectively rather than shoe horning in an ergonomic nightmare until a tank is designed around the gun.
 

Chef

LE
Whilst I agree that Britain and France were belatedly rearming. would there have been the massive amount spent on research or developing the Spitfires Mk II-Vc let alone other technical advances. Technology costs so would radar have been issued to all the ships in the fleet?

Would the shadow factories have been binned? After all there's no sign of a war anytime soon so why are we on a war footing?

Ground forces may have been equipped with 6lb a/tk and were already motorised, unlike the Germans.

However strategic and tactical doctrines would be unlikely to change, why should they? The bomber will always get through was 'proven' in Spain. This would still put the Germans at an advantage in the opening phases of the war of '41' and would French morale have improved so much as to enable them to deal with being invaded again?

Plus another two years of peace might have lessened the sense of danger to the population. Politically there is also the 1940 general election to consider. possible vote winner is:

'We're spending too much on defence, there'll be no war until 1950* Cut the budget, reduce taxes and vote for us!'

Wavell's assessment of the war would still hold true:

1) Oil, shipping, air power, sea power are the keys to this war and they are interdependent.
Air power and sea power cannot function without oil.
Oil, except in very limited quantities, cannot be brought to its destination without shipping.
Shipping requires the protection of naval power and air power.

2) We have access to practically all the world's supplies of oil.
We have most of the shipping.
We have naval power.
We have potentially the greatest air power- when fully developed.
Therefore we are bound to win the war.

3) Germany is very short of oil and has access to only very limited quantities.
Germany's shipping is practically limited to the Baltic
Germany's naval power is small
Germany's air power is great but is a diminishing asset.
Therefore Germany is bound to lose the war.
May 1940

*Remember the no war for ten years political and budgetary philosophy.
 
That’s not the point, it was technology, even if impractical. We mustn’t let the current knowledge and mindset cloud the mentality of the time . Hitler needed raw materials. Stalin wanted technology and the best there was. Part of the spying issue isn’t just the blueprints it’s about meshing what the enemy knows with what you have.


stalin was perfectly happy with our nuclear weapons technology
 

goodoldboy

MIA
Book Reviewer
.....and if my dad had tits he would have been my mum....you can twist and re-configure it any way you like, that's what war games are for, shuffling models and pin flags on a games board, The end result would have been the same. whataboutery and IF, has millions of combinations, what if the americans had the atomic bomb in 1940, what if the Germans didn't have Von Braun, what if Roosevelt was assassinated in 1939, what if Churchill never existed, and lord Halifax handed over the UK to Hitler. What if my father hadn't been posted to Burma..................What if McGuiness and Adams hadn't been born.........And paisley was a Muslim...FFS

This "What If" has no end...its a pointless exercise.
Probably the most feasible and realistic 'what if' is what if France hadn't surrendered so early?
 

4(T)

LE
Don’t forget, a lot of equipment, weapon and vehicle advances come about due to the necessity of war. If we hadn’t have got involved early and realized our deficiencies, chances are the politicians wouldn’t have approved anything anyway


True, but by the time of Chamberlain's Munich Agreement on 30th September 1938, it was clear that war was coming. Real rearmament was underway (not just "fitted for" kit, or notional mob stocks, or JIT procurement), and many of the actual WW2 kits were already in development - e.g such as the 6 pounder AT, which was already in project during Munich.

Indeed, if you run through the histories of many bits of critical WW2 kit, you find many of them were ordered 1935-8.

The context to this is that the entire adult population of Britain had already experienced war with Germany and had been living with the tumultuous events on the continent (Versailles, the Weimar Republic, hyperinflation, the rise of the Nazis, Hitler's unequivocal political messaging, etc). Thus everyone in Britain - politicians, military, public - had a realistic view of what was likely to come.

Chamberlain is maligned today for Munich, but he was only enacting the will of the country. There was a dread pall of "oh no, not again" over the country, and I think most people thought indulging Hitler with a few bits of a far-way country was worth trying if it gave a chance of avoiding another war and a million dead Britons.

-
 

4(T)

LE
Probably the most feasible and realistic 'what if' is what if France hadn't surrendered so early?


I guess pretty much everyone, including Hitler and the German general staff, was expecting a re-run of WW1; the boche sitting on much the same ground they'd occupied in WW1, and the allies back to the same entrenched attrition as WW1 - Hitler intending to avoid the whole 5 year rematch by cutting straight to an advantageous Armistice.

Whats interesting is that the allies may have had the advantage a second time around, Britain and France had both optimised heavy armour for breaching trench fortifications. Today people laugh at the Tog 2 and other bizarre tracked monstrosities, but I don't think the Germans would have been laughing if they'd been used.
 
In 1938, Britain couldn’t withstand Germany
in 1940, it couldn't loose.

Chamberlain bought the critical time to rearm.
 

goodoldboy

MIA
Book Reviewer
I dont buy this line of reasoning at all

1) The bombs being developed when THE Enemy is Germany.
2) As far as they were concerned at the time - The Nuke simply allowed 1 aircraft to do what it currently took 1000. The other nasty effects weren't understood so modern sensibilities dont apply.
From a 1940 -45 perspective what is the difference between totalling Hamburg with the entire RAF vs a single bomber - Its simply a damn sight more efficient and risks fewer aircrew.

I see no reason back then why it wouldn't have landed on Dresden or Kiel.
I doubt that the UK would have had its own functioning nuclear weapon until at least 1946. The US poured so much money and resources into the Manhatten programme that the UK's progress was soon overtaken (helped by us giving them technological assistance).

Even as early as 1943 the combined Allied commanders decided that any functional 'atomic' device would be used in the Far East, as part of the testing, well away from Washington, London and Moscow. That was before the capability of a nuclear device was even known.

Germany, or any other part of Europe was never the intended target of any nuclear device from the Allies and the showboating of Tibbets after the cessation of WW2 was sad in the extreme. He was the hero of the hour in late 1945 and, therefore, had to be believed - and he revelled in the adulation.

Here in the west we targeted German cities and facilities with convention weapons and caused hideous levels of casualties and devastation in the process. In the east the US did the same to the Japanese cities on an even grander scale. If anyone thinks that Germany was plastered, just look at the comparable figures for Japan.

Nuclear weapons ended, thankfully, WW2 even though they were never intended to be used in the European theatre of operations after 1942 when the thinking changed. If anyone can provide verifiable and official documentation that Berlin was a potential target of a nuclear device I will apologise and get back in my box.
 
Nuclear weapons ended, thankfully, WW2 even though they were never intended to be used in the European theatre of operations after 1942 when the thinking changed. If anyone can provide verifiable and official documentation that Berlin was a potential target of a nuclear device I will apologise and get back in my box.

Well the first definitive target selection meeting wasn't until May 10 1945 and Hitler had shot himself by then...

 

Chef

LE
I doubt that the UK would have had its own functioning nuclear weapon until at least 1946. The US poured so much money and resources into the Manhatten programme that the UK's progress was soon overtaken (helped by us giving them technological assistance).

Even as early as 1943 the combined Allied commanders decided that any functional 'atomic' device would be used in the Far East, as part of the testing, well away from Washington, London and Moscow. That was before the capability of a nuclear device was even known.

Germany, or any other part of Europe was never the intended target of any nuclear device from the Allies and the showboating of Tibbets after the cessation of WW2 was sad in the extreme. He was the hero of the hour in late 1945 and, therefore, had to be believed - and he revelled in the adulation.

Here in the west we targeted German cities and facilities with convention weapons and caused hideous levels of casualties and devastation in the process. In the east the US did the same to the Japanese cities on an even grander scale. If anyone thinks that Germany was plastered, just look at the comparable figures for Japan.

Nuclear weapons ended, thankfully, WW2 even though they were never intended to be used in the European theatre of operations after 1942 when the thinking changed. If anyone can provide verifiable and official documentation that Berlin was a potential target of a nuclear device I will apologise and get back in my box.

Interesting fact is that the bomber that delivered it to Hiroshima cost over a third more to develop, About $3 billion compared to $1.9 for the bomb.
 
What I find remarkable is the degree of expansion of the RAF in the mid 30s. Dozens and dozens of new-build aerodromes, all to a pretty high standard. Spitfire, Hurricane, Stirling, Halifax, Manchester and Wellington were all developed from the mid-30s.

If the MOD, say in the early 2000s had gone to the Treasury and said “we think there’s a war coming, we need 30 new airfields and 6 new aircraft types”, the answer would be pretty damned short.

What was different in the mid 30s, that all this got funded? 1935 was well before Chamberlain‘s bit of paper. Hitler had only been in power a couple years by then.
 
Active planning of the use of the Atomic Bomb on Germany ended in Autumn 1944.
at that point, the Allies were confident the war with a Germany would by over by the end of 1944 and all considerations switched to Japan.
However, if Grozfaz had suceeded with his Battle of the Bulge gamble and the war in Europe had dragged on into late 1945, Germany would very definitely have felt the heat of nuclear fire.
 
Interesting fact is that the bomber that delivered it to Hiroshima cost over a third more to develop, About $3 billion compared to $1.9 for the bomb.

That surprised me, I looked it up. There were nearly 4,000 B-29s built, and the $3bn includes the production costs. Still a shit ton of money though, compared with the costs of the bomb.

I wonder if the Manhattan costs include all the ancillary stuff? The lake where I live was built to supply power to Oak Ridge where the uranium was/is enriched. Perhaps costs such as those weren’t included in the Manhattan costs. or maybe they were and it was “bargain of the 20th century”.
 

Latest Threads

Top