Did Göring's arrogance cost Germany the war?

Did Göring's arrogance cost Germany the war?

His overconfidence in the Luftwaffe kept the military from rolling tanks onto the beach at Dunkirk and annihilating all of the European soldiers, and over a quarter of a million troops got back, many helping defend against Germany in the Battle of Britain. If Germany just stomped them all couldn't they have invaded Britain ezpz and take over Europe?

Other urls found in this thread:

dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf
dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a220715.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Germany could have invaded Britain at any point during the war

>DUDE, GERMANY WOULD TOTALLY WIN WW2 IF....

>I post WW2 threads on Veeky Forums

Actually...

>eradicating the British troops at Dunkirk would have magically sunk the royal navy and downed the royal airforce, facilitating an invasion of the British isles by Germany

No. Among other things

>There were very valid, on the ground reasons for not advancing immediately on Dunkirk. You needed the panzers to rest and refit. You also needed to pursue the main bulk of the French forces as they retreated.
>Even if we assume that Germany can close the pocket without substantial loss or falling behind schedule on other necessary tasks, there's the minor difficulty that a loss of 10 divisions, while severe, is not crippling to the UK
>It certainly won't make much of a difference in the short term, given the patent inability of the Luftwaffe to win the Battle of Britain (in the fucking sky), nor is the German ability to cross the channel really existent.

No, even a decisive defeat of all forces at Dunkirk would not have precipitated a successful invasion of England.
A. England was not completely devoid of young men back home who would be battle ready with accelerated training in 10-15weeks.
B. Germany was not immediately ready to follow Dunkirk with an invasion. At least a couple months would have been spent in preparation, even if it looked super advantageous.
C. The United States would have been able to transport over enough war supplies through the north sea routes to keep England in the fight as insurgent resistance from Scotland until at least 43'. Germany at best would have taken half of Britain before being held up in quagmire.
D. The U.S. Would then be able to join the fight and liberate England by late 44'.
E. France and Italy remain occupied longer but who gives a shit.
F. US AND UK let the soviets bum rush in the east even longer while fortifying Britain until 47' and leave Africa, and Italy alone. Germany eventually leaves, unopposed to redistribute forces in East and France.
G. French insurgent resistance is better funded and equipped. More effectively softening the occupation forces.
H. Allied bombing against Germany stalled until:
I. Soviets stalemate somewhere in the East until US and UK bombers begin massive Bombing campaign against German production with new jet powered bombers and fighters in 48.
J. German jet bombers hit New York and Washington with conventional weapons.
K. US holds off on atomizing Berlin because using it against Nips is one thing but killing Europeans that way is considered too far.
L. Germans roll out V4 missle in 49 and pummel Moscow and Leningrad with ICBMs .
M. Russians say fuck it and drop stolen designed atomic weapons on Berlin. Game over.

Sources: My crusty anus.

>germany couldn't have won the war even if it made the exactly right decisions

You can make all the right decisions and still lose.

Thats Tito not Goering you goon.

But will pregnant Anne Frank survive in this scenario?

And if germany did it would have won, Its strategic position pre invasion of russia and declaration of war on USA was winnable. though i do concede everything the nazis could have done to win they would have due to being driven by ideology

How was it winnable? Britain and her empire alone outproduced the Germans, and the AMericans were slowly but surely tilting towards the British in the war; while open involvement might be years away without a Pearl Harbor (which, incidentally is not something the Germans can do much about), lend lease is a massive shot in the arm for the Brits, which allows tapping into an economy that is roughly 4 times the size of all of Germany plus her occupied countries.

I think that if after securing europe germany could have committed to winning in africa and the Mediterranean. Attempting to take the Suez canal and the Levant would have been less draining and damaging to the axis position than invading the soviet union. Victory in africa would probably mean turkey or Spain joining the axis allowing a far later(post allied vs axis war) not ill conceived invasion of the soviet union also taking the Baku oil and soviet Persia and central Asia.
Victory in this theater allows Germany an access to oil in the middle east, Mediterranean shipping is now safe, Invasion of india through Persia. British india would probably fall from a 2 front war with the Japanese.
Obviously this is with 20/20 hindsight and Hitler made his decisions based on muh lebensraum so no way he would have done this. Just imagine the 1917 general staff had control in 1941 with competent leadership instead of an ideologue

>I think that if after securing europe germany could have committed to winning in africa and the Mediterranean.
You are wrong.

dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf
dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a220715.pdf
The local level of infrastructure, or lack thereof, is the limiting factor in how much force Germany can put into the North African war. They cannot meaningfully expand that, nor can they take Suez, which historically they got nowhere close to.

>Obviously this is with 20/20 hindsight and Hitler made his decisions based on muh lebensraum so no way he would have done this. Just imagine the 1917 general staff had control in 1941 with competent leadership instead of an ideologue
So, you mean, we have our Halder or whomever his equivalent saying to hold in Cyrenica as long as possible with as least force as possible while Germany attempted to win in the East?

>The local level of infrastructure, or lack thereof, is the limiting factor in how much force Germany can put into the North African war. They cannot meaningfully expand that, nor can they take Suez, which historically they got nowhere close to.
Its not a matter of supplying more men its supplementing them with better ones


>The weakness ofthe Italian
Army was laid bare. "The army was designed for colonial war against African tribesmen.
Predominantly infantry, it was practically useless in a mobile desert environment. What
armour forces it did possess were obsolete - underpowered, underarmoured, and
undergunned. It was in no way capable of modern mechanized warfare.
300,000 Italians were able to be supplied there if the Italians allowed german troops to handle this theater there wouldn't have the mass surrenders from them being outdated colonial maintaining troops

>Specifically, the paper
asserts that the Axis decision not to seize Malta resulted in a Theater sustainment plan that
was tenuous and inconsistent.
If the axis had taken committed to taking Malta instead of wasting paras on crete this would have been a problem and forward from take seuz results in a axis dominated Mediterranean

>So, you mean, we have our Halder or whomever his equivalent saying to hold in Cyrenica as long as possible with as least force as possible while Germany attempted to win in the East?
No I mean we have 450,000 the best from the 1939-1941 campaigns supported by amour suited for desert warfare advancing into Egypt

Just the difference in troop quality would have seen the Suez fall

Suez falls and the Mediterranean supply is disrupted Spain joins the war cutting it off completely. This also severely weakens trade from the empire to Britain

Suez falls and the Levant falls turkey joins the war. This further encircles the soviet union

Levant falls persia and india are next from there the axis powers would have a completely encircled the soviet union on land.

They would now have
>Far greater strategic position being able to take the Caucasus oil early
>Far larger strategic resource reserves
>More troops from semi liberated collaborator nations
>more minor axis powers(turkey, portugal, spain,azid hind india)

>No I mean we have 450,000 the best from the 1939-1941 campaigns supported by amour suited for desert warfare advancing into Egypt
That. Is. Impossible. You can't supply 450,000 men in the western desert, because you have no rail link between your only viable port and the areas you want to attack. Rommel could barely supply 130,000 troops, and only got as far as he did with his second rush by a very fortuitous seizing of British supplies. And the problems get worse the further you penetrate, and the British get to field more and more men as they fall back into Egypt and now have a friendly rail system to transport their stuff from their ports.

You literally have the professional staff officer, the latter day equivalent of the "1917 general staff" you were wanting in command, coming to the conclusion that offensive is impossible and that the goal in North Africa should be trying to delay the inevitable on the cheap.

Seriously, read those links. Lack of commitment was never the limiting factor in North Africa.

US nukes = German defeat. I don't see any way around that.

>Seriously, read those links. Lack of commitment was never the limiting factor in North Africa.
I have read it. It mentions how committing to Africa directly by just sending more german troops would have worked but it also mentioned that failure to take Malta was a major contributor to the supply issue, one of the things i mentioned was choosing to take crete over malta to support italy in greece

The atomic bomb was created with Berlin in mind you fucking brainlet

>t mentions how committing to Africa directly by just sending more german troops would have worked
No it doesn't.
> but it also mentioned that failure to take Malta was a major contributor to the supply issue,
No it doesn't, and in fact makes the opposite point: Even the losses from Maltese interdiction paled before the simple attritional losses from trying to operate a supply line close to 1,000 km long in the desert.

Read them.

The only way is taking British colonies instead of russia. Not declaring war on the us and maintaining rhetoric that the us will not be invaded and that this is a crusade against imperialism and communism . Germany in control of British colonies would have no oil problems and have strategic dominance over the Soviet union. Invading the soviet union through the Caucasus, central asia and eastern europe. The red army wouldn't have been battle hardened by the early years of the war. After the initial axis strike leaves the soviet union without their manpower eastern europe, oil in the Caucasus, axis dominace of afroeurasia is inevitable. A bitter peace between Germany and Britain would follow. 71% of Americans didnt want to fight to liberate europe until after germany declared war on them. With german hegemony even more dominant, america after dealing with japan would secure the american continent. America wouldn't be looking to join another war after there war with japan, they would still nuke japan to intimidate germany. after maybe 10-20 years germany gets nukes. cold war after

...

you know he is right

Germany had no way to take British colonies because it had no way to build a navy that could challenge Britain's. And selling the war as a crusade against imperialism would have been hard given what the Germans did to Czechoslovakia and Poland. By December 1941 and open US entrance into the war, the Germans had already been stalemated by the British. The Battle of Britain had failed. North Africa was a back-and-forth sideshow. The Brits ruled the waves except for losing ships to subs.

>B. Germany was not immediately ready to follow Dunkirk with an invasion. At least a couple months would have been spent in preparation, even if it looked super advantageous.
>couple of months

After weeks of discussion and planning the Germans had decided the best course of action was to float barges across the channel packed with men. Barges. Which they didn't even possess in quantity enough to transport a fraction of the invasion force at once. In waters that, even if Britain's entire land force was rendered non-existent, was leisurely controlled by British ships.

But wait, why not just have the Luftwaffe protect these magical ocean going barges packed to the brim with men, thousands of HORSES, and supplies? Oh right, because the Luftwaffe couldn't do shit against the British navy and never did the Luftwaffe believe (or later learn) that they could maintain air superiority long enough to transfer 60,000 men over the course of 10 days. The plan to feed the first few divisions landing on shore? Oh, just scavenge a bit. Fix some wharfs and you'll be fine. We'll totally be able to transport thousands of tons of supplies at some point later on.

Sorry I'm an autist. It was never going to happen. They started seriously "experimenting" around June of 1940 and frequently postponed launching dates up to November of that year. There's some pretty hilarious stories from those planning experiments though. It's laughable how ill prepared the krauts were to try and attempt it.

>invading Western Europe took months, if not years of extensive preparation, developing specialized equipment, against a practically beaten opponent

>"lmao just ghetto-rig some barges and you're fine dude, it's not like you're invading a huge island with shitload of population, equivalent air-force, and far superior navy."

Germany could not have invaded Britain, even if they did capture the BEF.

How the fuck is Germany going to take British colonies? With what power projection ability?

>Did Göring's arrogance cost Germany the war?
dunno but it sure as fuck didn't help the situation one bit

How the hell did BEF help in Battle of Britain? The problem in BoB was never the possibility of a land victory, but getting to do a naval invasion. The moment Wermacht could get 300 000 men on the shores of UK, the endgame would be grim for UK.

>you need boats to invade India through Persia and the Levant

They didn't even have enough boats (or port capacity) to supply an invasion force to get through to Alexandria. The Levant and Persia may as well be on the moon, as far as the Germans are concerned

>The moment Wermacht could get 300 000 men on the shores of UK, the endgame would be grim for UK.
with what ships would they get those 300k men there? with what ships and how would they supply them? best case scenario is that they land them but get absolutely btfo by Brits and it's an even more of a failure and laughing stock than Gallipoli, Anzio and Dieppe combined

>K. US holds off on atomizing Berlin because using it against Nips is one thing but killing Europeans that way is considered too far.
Wouldn't happen, pretty sure everyonewould agree that yeah both the japanese and germans would have deserved it

>invaded Britain
This is your brain on wehraboo hugo boss fetish.