Could Hitler Have Won WWII?

[polishshooter]

If Doenitz was his "only good Admiral," then he was in a world of hurt!

Doenitz was a Yes Man, that advanced FAR beyond his capabilities due to his "acceptance" of the Nazi ideology. If he would have had ANY meaningful sea commands, just MAYBE he ends up not such a micromanager moving pieces on a chessboard daily, in search of the almost daily "tonnage" counts that was as worthless as the "body counts" in Vietnam.

It was that micromanagement, and ESPECIALLY the DAILY requirements for each Uboat to surface and report, which cost him the Battle of the Atlantic, even via Huff-Duff alone, even IF we didn't have Ultra and could READ the mail BEFORE he did....

I am NOT a fan of Doenitz, I think he was a slimy "part time" Nazi who was ALMOST as much of an opportunist as Hitler. In Peacetime, ESPECIALLY without Hitler, he would have been lucky to advance past Captain....

Raeder was the best Admiral that Hitler had, but because he UNDERSTOOD Naval Warfare, as WELL as "Honor," and devotion to his SAILORS, as WELL as telling the TRUTH that Hitler didn't want to hear, is why Hitler intrinsically could not trust him.


And Bernie? You are watching History in the making, and do not recognize it. IF we are successful in Iraq, and like it or not, EVERYTHING is happening according to plan, even if not the timetable...a Democratic Iraq will be the most important stabilizing influence in the Middle East since the British Campaign against the Mahdists....and eerily SIMILAR as well....


And your point on Wilson and the 14 points is well taken, PS. Wilson is NOT one of my favorite Presidents, kind of like Jimmy Carter in a Zoot Suit. It WAS pretty Quixotic, and in the same vein as the later Washington Treaties, and the Kellogg-Briand Pacts. However, it WAS the main "official" reason the Germans accepted the Armistice....(Fresh American Doughboys and Marines that didn't fight "by the rules" and were almost unstoppable to the tired Germans helped immensely, ALONG with the massive amount of Allied tanks that were almost ready to roll with troops that finally figured out how to USE them....! ) But it gave the Germans the "stab in the back" argument which Hitler played upon.

But the point was the President IS charged by the Constitution with planning and executing Foreign Policy, and Wilson, for better or worse, WAS cut off at the knees by the Republicans, Congress, and the "press..."


But even saying that, the BIGGEST mistakes the former "Allies" made was in not ENFORCING Versailles when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, much LESS annexed Austria, and started the shenanigans in Czechoslovakia, and later Poland. A Reinforced Armored REGIMENT could have taken Berlin and captured Hitler in '35, and the French ALONE had the power to take Berlin in 38 and 39, ESPECIALLY when EVERYTHING Hitler owned was in Poland! (DAMN that Maginot Mentality!)



JUST like when we did nothing when the North Vietnamese rolled on the South in clear violation of the Paris Peace Accords, which led to ALL the problems in the late 70s and early 80s in Africa, and Central America, JUST like we did nothing when Saddam thumbed his nose at the terms of capitulation at the end of the Gulf War, for 12 YEARS, the COST of doing NOTHING to AVOID conflict NOW was EXPONENTIALLY higher than it would have been to take action much EARLIER, like '35, '75, and '95!

Heck, we take down Saddam in '95, even if we DID later run with our tail between our legs in Somalia, there might not BE a "Bin Laden" of any consequence today....


Bold Military action taken immediately WHEN NECESSARY is the BEST way to AVOID a more costly WAR later. THAT is the most cogent lesson of History!



And I just HOPE we are not making the SAME mistake with Kim in North Korea......

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

But even saying that, the BIGGEST mistakes the former "Allies" made was in not ENFORCING Versailles when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, much LESS annexed Austria, and started the shenanigans in Czechoslovakia, and later Poland. A Reinforced Armored REGIMENT could have taken Berlin and captured Hitler in '35, and the French ALONE had the power to take Berlin in 38 and 39, ESPECIALLY when EVERYTHING Hitler owned was in Poland! (DAMN that Maginot Mentality!)

I couldn't agree with you more, Polish. When Hitler re-entered the Rhineland in violation of the Versailles Treaty, he was forced to promise his generals that he would withdraw if the Allied powers threatened war. The same thing is true when he annexed the Sudatenland, and a month later, the rest of Czechoslovkia. The Allies stood there with their tumbs up their. . . well, you get the picture. In 1938, Hitler could have been stopped if the former Allied powers, including the rightous U.S., had shown a little backbone and been willing to counter Hitler's actions with force. By September 1939, though, the German military machine was so strong no kind of "limited war" was going to stop him or it.

Originally Posted by Bernie109

The Sermon on the Mount is not a pacifist statement. Not by a long shot!

No, it's not, Bernie, or at least not precisely. In fact, it is many things, but among them is the ideal of peace and rightousness as a means of salvation, which was the issue I was referring to. Look at the Beatitudes contained within the Sermon. Not exactly an adcovacy of destruction and violence, I think. Many of the points made in the Sermon are repeated in other parts of the Gospels, and indeed repeated in the Sermon on the Plain.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

. . . and in the same vein as the later Washington Treaties

Generally, I agree with you Polish, but the Washington Naval Treaty might just have served a useful purpose in the short term. It can be argued that it did temporarialy stop the naval arms race of the 1920s in which both the U.S. and Britain, both of whom had similar strategic interests, were heavily engaged. Some historians argue that race, had it continued, might well have ended in a war between Britain and the U.S.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

JUST like when we did nothing when the North Vietnamese rolled on the South in clear violation of the Paris Peace Accords

I can't disagree with you on that, Polish, though I think there was no practical way we could have done anything about it by 1975. The American people would simply not have tolerated a reintervention, or even air strikes. Between you and I, I wouldn't have cried if Nixon or Ford had simply order a nuclear strike on Vietnam and made a glass-covered, self-lighting parking lot out of the whole damn country, but then, I am admittedly a bit prejudiced on that issue!

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Bold Military action taken immediately WHEN NECESSARY is the BEST way to AVOID a more costly WAR later. THAT is the most cogent lesson of History!

History has taught that lesson countless times over the last several millennia, Polish, but rarely has it been heeded. That's one of the reasons I have always admired the Romans so much. Mess with their interests and an opponent found himself facing the legions, his cities in ruins and his citizens for sale as slaves to the highest bidder.

[Bernie109]

The entire point of the Sermon on the mount is that God is in charge and not any arrogant nation. God is the final arbitor of Justice.

Democracy will never take in Iraq or any other Arab nation. they will never accept our godless decadence decadence nor should they.
Democracy is not apermant state, it only lasts until the people realise thay can vote for themselves an ever increasing largess at public expense leading to loose fiscal policy, economic collapse, and dictatorship.
Even if you had a "Democratic Iraq" That is no guarantee of keepin so called terrorists out. The enemy could (And already is) gumming up the works by having their representatives in the Parlament.

The Treaty of versalles was a war crime unto its self. To imply that the germans had a moral duty to starve to death makes us no better than the Nazis.

[Bernie109]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

I couldn't agree with you more, Polish. When Hitler re-entered the Rhineland in violation of the Versailles Treaty, he was forced to promise his generals that he would withdraw if the Allied powers threatened war. The same thing is true when he annexed the Sudatenland, and a month later, the rest of Czechoslovkia. The Allies stood there with their tumbs up their. . . well, you get the picture. In 1938, Hitler could have been stopped if the former Allied powers, including the rightous U.S., had shown a little backbone and been willing to counter Hitler's actions with force. By September 1939, though, the German military machine was so strong no kind of "limited war" was going to stop him or it.



No, it's not, Bernie, or at least not precisely. In fact, it is many things, but among them is the ideal of peace and rightousness as a means of salvation, which was the issue I was referring to. Look at the Beatitudes contained within the Sermon. Not exactly an adcovacy of destruction and violence, I think. Many of the points made in the Sermon are repeated in other parts of the Gospels, and indeed repeated in the Sermon on the Plain.



Generally, I agree with you Polish, but the Washington Naval Treaty might just have served a useful purpose in the short term. It can be argued that it did temporarialy stop the naval arms race of the 1920s in which both the U.S. and Britain, both of whom had similar strategic interests, were heavily engaged. Some historians argue that race, had it continued, might well have ended in a war between Britain and the U.S.



I can't disagree with you on that, Polish, though I think there was no practical way we could have done anything about it by 1975. The American people would simply not have tolerated a reintervention, or even air strikes. Between you and I, I wouldn't have cried if Nixon or Ford had simply order a nuclear strike on Vietnam and made a glass-covered, self-lighting parking lot out of the whole damn country, but then, I am admittedly a bit prejudiced on that issue!



History has taught that lesson countless times over the last several millennia, Polish, but rarely has it been heeded. That's one of the reasons I have always admired the Romans so much. Mess with their interests and an opponent found himself facing the legions, his cities in ruins and his citizens for sale as slaves to the highest bidder.

Hitory has taught that national arrogance leads to major wars. Major wars bankrupt otherwise prosperous nations and shift the base of power to other emerging nations that become arrogant and engage in major wars.

[Bernie109]

Viet Nam was lost by the South Vietnamese. ARVN had more and better tanks, more troops,and compl,et air superiority. By the order of battle, there is no way the North should have won. Perhaps our decadence, materialism, and selfish way of life is not something people arw willing to rally around and die for.

[polishshooter]

The problem with History is you cannot be simplistic!

"Arrogance" can lead to war, but only if someone or some nation chooses STAND UP to the arrogance.

In the famous words of Ronny Reagan, "What's the Alternative?"

Especially when the OTHER side is NOT following the teachings of the Bible? Slavery? Suicide?


There are not a lot of options when you are pushed into a corner, BUT to fight back or die. It's the same thing with nations. And that is NOT arrogance.




PS, as far as the Washington Treaties being necessary to avoid waar between Britain and the US, quite frankly, PS, that is the VERY first time I have heard that theory postulatted, I'll have to ruminate on it a while.

Although I'm having trouble grasping the conscept...it was mainly meant to keep Japan, France, and Germany down in the Naval Department, and rough parity between the US and Britain, while avoiding an arms race none of the signatories could truly afford at the time....

I guess I do not see where a Superior AMERICAN Navy is a threat to Britain, in the 20s and 30s, especially when we were already working very closely together since China, WWI and heck, since the anti-slaver patrol days...and we BOTH strongly supported the same national policy of free and unfettered commerce on the seas.


Hmmmmm....

And in '75 we HAD to do SOMETHING when the NVA rolled down Highway 7, even if just a token response, like a few tactical naval air strikes on the columns, maybe even a few frigates tossing some 5" shells from 5 miles out, or even just remining Haiphong harbor with a mine or two, SOMETHING to show that cannot break a treaty and get away scot free...I've always held that against Gerald Ford, and REALLY think that was the major reason he lost to Carter, NOT the "Pardon..." no matter HOW tough he tried to look on the Mayaguez take back...

What so many people, some highly educated, and in high positions, that should KNOW better, who push "diplomacy vs. warfare" so much don't grasp is that the ONLY thing backing up that treaty, heck, in truth the only thing truly behind ANY tenet of "International Law" is force, or the threat of force...and YES, that ultimately many times MEANS war.....

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Especially when the OTHER side is NOT following the teachings of the Bible? Slavery? Suicide?

Precisely so! The ethnocentrism and culture-bound thinking displayed by Americans never ceases to amaze me, Polish. We seem to think that simply because Christianianity and its teachings are so prevalent in the thinking of the Western World that they must, by definition, apply everywhere else as well! Not so, as even a cursory glance at world history proves beyond any shadow of a doubt. I daresay whatever else the Bible may be, it most assuredly is not a suicide pact. When this issue arises, I'm often reminded of the passage in Luke 22:36.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

PS, as far as the Washington Treaties being necessary to avoid waar between Britain and the US, quite frankly, PS, that is the VERY first time I have heard that theory postulatted, I'll have to ruminate on it a while.

The concept has been around for a while, Polish, though belief in it it is by no means shared by all historians. I myself have some questions about it, though based on the historical actions of Britain over the last four centuries or so, I don't think it is totally inconceivable. The one consistant factor in the actions of the British has always been that they act in what they feel is their own best interest, and a U.S. at that time and place with a bigger and more powerful fleet to control the sea lanes than Britain possessed is bound to have been a scary thought for our British cousins. Yet, overall, I suspect you are probably right. It is difficult to conceive of outright war between the U.S. and Britain in the 20s or any other time after 1814.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

And in '75 we HAD to do SOMETHING when the NVA rolled down Highway 7, even if just a token response . . .

To what end, Polish? I must disagree with you here, at least in part. Only a piddly and useless token response would have been possible unless we were willing to use nukes. It seems to me that if any response were taken, it should have been that, as radical as such an action may sound. Moreover, our willingness to respond in such a way to further attacks on the South should have been made plain in the treaty. Any attack the South and "Look Ma, no Hanoi!"

[polishshooter]

Anything, PS, would have been better than NOTHING. International Law DEMANDED it.

And I disagree about the nukes, we could have done something "effective enough" with the means on station. EVERY time the NVA "went conventional" during the war we SMOKED them, it was war on OUR terms. That armored column rolling down the coastal highway would have fared NO better, and probably much WORSE, than ANY armored column rolliing in the open in broad daylight in History against an eneny with control of the skies! With just the aircraft on the Oriskany on Dixie Station, we would have made it the "Highway of Death." They weren't very good at armored warfarelogistics EITHER, even if we just smoked their just juice trucks, it would have been a GREAT propaganda piece on the evening news seeing all their T-34s running our of FUEL, BEFORE Siagon, NOT smashing down our embassy gates (while we are frantically FLEEING...)

And I hold that by doing NOTHING, we are compicit in just about EVERYTHING that came next, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the fall of the Shah and the rise of Radical Islamists in Iran, the Cuban excursions in Angola and Central Africa, the Sandinistas, etc, etc, etc, even so far as the Soviet invasion of Afganistan and Sadam Hussein attacking Kuwait, even bin Laden! They just KNEW we would/will "do nothing..."

A "Treaty" of ANY kind not DICTATED by a clear victor is only a piece of paper backed up by the willingness of BOTH sides to resume the fight if the pact is BROKEN. And to the extent that we did NOTHING, we changed the "negotiated" Paris Peace Accords, that we had to BOMB the NVA into even coming back to the table, to a "Dictated" settlement, such as a victor gives to the vanquished. We really had not "lost" the Vietnam War, until THAT point. Granted we wern't going to WIN it the way we were fighting it, but we didn't LOSE it either...until then.

The fact we did nothing, didn't even CONTEMPLATE doing anything "for political reasons" is shameful, as well as deadly.

I maintain Ford SHOULD have IMMEDIATELY resumed a short and dirty bombing campaign, both hitting tactical targets from the armored column of NVA tanks, as WELL as mining the harbors, and one last full load, everything we had on the ground at Guam, BUFF mission for old time's sake on downtown Hanoi, while going on the air and EXPLAINING to the American People what the Accords said, what they are doing now which is in direct contravention, and that it was not anything but a punitive action for breaking the Paris Peace Accords, and that we would NOT be giving any more direct aid or commitment to South Vietnam. This is about US, and what WE will tolerate. And it would have taken LEADERSHIP which sadly, Ford did not posess, but then again after Watergate, few Presidents have had....

I believe the "Funk" that the nation and especially our military was in "after Vietnam" was exacerbated by Jimmy Carter, was caused by the cowardly scramble OUT of Vietnam in 1975, NOT by what happened BEFORE.

[Bernie109]

"If we lose Viet Nam we will all be calling each other "Comrade" We lost and it still didn't happen.

Today, we are saying "If we lose in Iraq we will all be bowing to Mecca"
Once again....Like we should have been after Viet Nam.

We did our duty when we trained and Equipped the South Vietnamese.
By the order of battle, there is no way the north should have won. ARVN alone should have been able to steam roll over the North having had more and better armor, Complet air superiority and a larger Army.
It was not our job to go in and do thier job for them. If the South was not willing to fight, it deserved to lose.


While I myself voted for Reagan both time, I refuse to worship him as the neocons do today. Having served in the Reagan era, I can tell you that a large peactime military leads to wastefull spending. "Wonder weapons that cost a lot of money and seldomly deliver as adverised are built. Eventually, what I call "Harley Davisonweapons" are built. Thay are weapons that are almost entirely built for image, not performance. I would ahve love to have a talk with Reagan and find out where this gross mismanagement came from. Under reagan, the navy became a non fuuctional field day and fire drill force. "Work she may, shine she must" became our motto.

The Book "Fall from Glory" explains some of what went on during that time.
Today, we are undoing a lot of that mess.

When you do a large peactime build up, you burn up a lot of money building wonder weapons that at best, are the wrong weapons for the wrong war. At worst, you are building a fleet of harleys whose only real mission is to make a lot of noise, show off a lot of style, and burn up a lot of money.

Even back in WW2, We were building an emense fleet of battleships. The last Battleship was ordered in 1940. When WW2 started, it quickly became apparent that the battleship was not needed and the 5th Iowa, The Kentucky was Launched and placed in storage. Even the Super Carrier, in spite of current propaganda was not the real hero of the war, the "Jeep Carrier" was. In Guadalcanal, the Admiral reused to risk his carriers, withdrew, and told the Marines "You are authorised to surrender".

The Marines on the other hand, were told how unecessary they were and to just concentrate on being the navy's honor Guard. Those who refused to listen became the real heros. In future battles, it was the expendable "Jeep Carrier" that took the risks that the real carriers wouldn't and carried the day for the Marines ashore.

To advocate a large peactime military only serves to waste a lot of money building the wrong weapons for the wrong war. At worst, it builds expensive fake weapons whose only purpose is image.

As we become an Empire, we become the one to beat and all future military doctrine will be on how to take down our so called wonder weapons.

[17thfabn]

Bernie when the Navy left the waters around Guadalcanal they had suffered a number of defeats at the hands of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The U.S. and allied Navies learned some hard lessons in night fighting and surface torpedo warafare. How many carriers did the U.S. have available at that time? I know it was only a few. They could not risk losing them there. The Navy did leave many of their aircraft at Guadalcanal. Once the navy built up more strength they returned and gained control of the seas around Guadalcanal.

No matter how bravely and well the soldiers and marines fought on Guadalcanal, it was control of the sea around it which would decide the battle. Who ever controled the sea could bring in more men and food and ammo. The side that did not control the sea, in this case the Japanese, their forces would and did starve! If I remember correctly more U.S. Navy personnel were killed at Guadalcanal than Marine.

The jeep carriers did yoeman service protecting convoys and supporting landing forces. In the battle off Samar in the Phillipines escort carrier pilots helped stop Japanese battle ships.

But the fleet carriers broke the back of the Imperial Japanese Navy:
You may have heard of the Battle of Coral Sea, in which the Fleet Carriers Yorktown and Lexington fought, with the loss of the Lexington.
Or perhaps the Battle of Midway, with the large carriers Enterprise, Hornet, and Yorktown, with the loss of Yorktown, but the sinking of 4 Japanese fleet carriers, breaking the back of Japanese naval power?

I may be wrong in this, but I believe that no other ship in Naval histroy destroyed more enemy ships or aircraft than the Large Fleet Carrier Enterprise! ( I am sure some will come along to correct or confirm this statement )

[Bernie109]

It was the Baby Flattops that remained on station when it became too dangerous for the real carriers to remain in the area. So much that even though CVE meant "Carrier, Escort" It was said that it really stood for "Combustable, vulernable, Expendable"

If did not build the baby ftattops, the marines would have been driven off of the beach. And actually, submarines sunk more enemy ships than all other assets conbined. And speaking of subarines, the larger Nautalus and Narwahl were considered the prime models before the war. It was the simpler, smaller, more reliable Gato class, that were able to be built in larger numbers and hence "Expendable" that carried the war. The old saying goes "If you can't afford to lose it, you can't afford to use it". Guadalcanal remains a disgrace to the navy to this day and the Marines still hold it against us.

[jamesed]

It is doubtful that Hitler could have won world war two even with all the what if's.

The plane and simple fact is that Hitler was defeated by only one thing in world war two and that would not have changed even with all the what ifs. Hitler lacked the supply of oil and other stratigic raw materials which he needed to fight a modern war.

Hitler's war machine for all its enovations was still primarily horse drawn because of the shortage of fuel necessary for the vast number of trucks needed for modern war. Even our famous Red Ball Espress of post D-Day wound up using more resources than it could delever to front lines.

The average octain rating of german gasoline was 65 octaine while the allies were flying 115/145 av gas. Hell even our automotive gasoline was 65 octaine. At the fall of Germany in 1945 the Lutwaffe had ove 300 Jet powered ME-262's, but didn't have the fule, (remember jets use cheap fuel) necessary to get them in the air. Also Germany had no steady source of Steel. Most of the Steel used by germany throughout world war two was of Swedish origion or from the mines in northern Norway.

Hitler had no source of Cryolite, (necesary for the reduction of Aluminum ore into aluminum). The US seized the only known source of cryolite in Greenland in 1940. The main resaon Germany didn't build 300 U-Boats before its entry into world war two was they didn't have the raw materials necessary for such a massive building program.

Modern wars are fought by economies and not weapons. You might have superior weapons but if you have a limited supply while your opponet has a endless supply of inferior weapons you are going to loose. Linen said it best "Quanity has a Quality all its own."

[Bernie109]

Since both of my parents grew up in Nazi Germany and immigrated here after the war, I have a somewhat different perspective.

It is easy to say that the Germans should have never elected Hitler. On the other hand, can WE say that we wouldn't have under the same circumstances? When our unemployment rate gets anywhere near the double digit mark (10%), look at what powers we are willing to sign over to the government in order to fix it. Try and see what happens when we reach the 65% unemployment rate Germany had in the 1920's.

We begin to panic when Inflation reaches 5%. See what we would be willing to sign over to the government when inflation tops 10,000%. At it's lowest point, the German Mark exchange rate reached 1.2 trillion to the U.S. Dollar.

My mother told me that you needed an entire laundry basket full of money to buy a loaf of bread. If you left the basket unattended, a thief would steal the basket and dump out the money.

FDR attempted a similar power grab however, the Constitutional sytem of checks and balances held. Look at what powers we are willing to sign over to governemnt in this so calles war on terror.

The old German Wiemar Republic was dead. The only two choices the people had were between the Nazis and the Redfront. Had the Redfront won, Germany would have applied for Soviet Statehood and Stalin would have been on the side of the Axis.

As it was, this almost did happen. NAZI is an acronym for "National Socialist Workers Party". Hitler ad Stalin were actually working towards form ing an alliance. Fortunatley, this fell through much in the same manner China and the Soviet Union had a falling out in the 60's.

Could Hitler have won? He almost did. What we now see as the current standards for air, armored, amd naval warefare were in it's infancy back then. In fact, the Germans wrote the initial draft of the book we are using today. As with any new concept, there will be teething problems and the Germans endured most of the initial shortcommings of this new form of warfare.

Weather it be North Africa, Normandy, air superiority battles, submarine warefare, and other areas of warfare, the allies learned from the initial german mistakes. Some examples:

In the Battle of Britian, Goering forbid his fighter pilots to leave the bombers they were escorting in order to persue the enemy fighters. As a result, RAF pilots had the option to disengage when things went bad. Havinge learned from this, the Allies imposed the opposite policy against the Luftwaffe leading to the destruction of their fighter force.

The U.S. submarine force litterally copied Doeniz's book on the submarine wolf pack. So much so that at Nuremburg, Com Sub Pac tesified in Doeniz's defense leading to the submarine warefare charges against him to be dropped.

Even Goering had General Hap Arnold, Ed "Bomber" Harris, and General Curtis Lemay testify in his defense. In spite of their best attempts to charge Goering with war crimes with what he did with the Lufwaffe, he was not convicted for what he did as Air marshal but as Interior Minister and his part in "The final solution."

Has Hitler allowed his genrals to run the war, to act as a vialbel intermediary where his Generals disagreed, and not went too far too fast, he would have won.

There are several novels written speculating on what would have happened had he won. Almost all conclude that Nazi germany would have gone the same route as the Soviet Union did. Imploded from within.

[Green]

Good post 109. Also if they settled the "Danzig'" issue, war with the west might have been avoided.

[polishshooter]

Gosh, Bernie, your facts are so wrong, I almost don't know where to begin...

Where did you learn your History? Just wondering....

First, CVEs were not in service prior to 1943....except for the FIRST few we sent to Britain, which stayed in port for "modifications" until the USN put the screws to them and made them fight them as is, and NOT "modifying" them the way the new and inexperienced FAA THOUGHT they should have been made, so the first few made actually went into active service AFTER the "second batch...." (If anything, that's ANOTHER reason the Germans lost, they made the same dumb mistake the British did, with one "Air Force," instead of having a seperate "Naval Air Arm." At least the BRITISH finally figured that out, but almost a little too late!)


Just for starters, there was NO time the CVs "fled, leaving the CVEs to fight..."the ONLY time CVEs were EVER attacked by anything other than subs and aircraft was off Samar, and Halsey was CHARGING with all his CVs after what he thought was the MAIN Japanese force, in true Mahanian fashion, which he ultimately DID destroy off Cape Engano.

His only MAJOR error, was in not leaving Task Force 34, Ching Lee and the "Worthless" Iowa and North Caroline battleships to guard San Bernandino...which was MAINLY the result of overconfidence that his aviators had destroyed the Japanese surface fleet, because EVERYONE KNOWS that the "carrier" has superceded the 'Battleship," PLUS the little known fact that NO carrier admiral at that phase of the war wanted to "give up" his "worthless" Iowa and North Carolina class BBs who at that point of the war were INVULNERABLE to air attack and were the BACKBONE of the task force's AA defense!

The ONLY reason the Taffy's were not DECIMATED by Kurita off Samar was that Kurita LOST HIS NERVE due to the bravery and sacrifice of all those Wildcat and Avenger pilots, making run after run even when they were out of GP bombs, depth charges or MG ammo, so that he thought he WAS facing Fleet Carriers, along with the Tin Cans who were SO brave he thought they were cruisers and DDs, not DDs and DDEs... If he keeps on he WOULD have sunk them all, not just Johnston and Hoel, and Samuel B. Roberts, and Gambier Bay, names we ALL should remember, and while yes, sacrificing everything (that was the PLAN!) since Halsey WAS charging back, Kurita MAY have gotten amongst the transports and Leyte just MIGHT have been not ONLY the largest naval Battle in History, and probably the biggest there will EVER be, but also a US DEFEAT! Mainly, of course, because Jesse Ohldendorf's OLDER "Worthless" Battleships, (the ones the Jap carriers had sunk at Pearl? The ones used as EXAMPLES that the Carrier had "superceded" the Battlewagons?) that had done nothing except, oh, say, DECISIVELY defeat the Jap BBs and cruisers the night before in Surigao, and were OUT OF AP AMMO.


The ONLY reason navies after WWII did NOT use battleships was COST. It was simply TOO MUCH MONEY to maintain THAT many sailors on ONE ship that BIG, in a peacetime, post-war economy, although the Iowas proved their worth time and time AGAIN off Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, and Kuwait when we brought them back OUT of storage, and then put them away again when budgets were CUT. I'm not sure we might not see one or two of them activated AGAIN sometime. There were actually MORE BB vs. BB fights in WWII than Carrier vs, Carrier. They earned their pay in WWII....



And it's not worth going after all the rest of your errors, it would just take too much time. You appear to be a bright person. You REALLY should try to study History sometime WITHOUT the blinders of your "agenda," you might learn something, especially, the simple but humbling truth, that "The MORE you know, the LESS you REALLY know...." and not ONLY about History!

[Bernie109]

In Guadalcanal, the Navy withdrew and sent the Marines a massage "You are authorised to surrender". The Marine Corps to this day has not forgiven the Navy for this act of cowardice.

The Iowas are finished. New Jersey ans Missuri are now Musiems and Iowa and Wisconsin are now stricken from the Naval Register. They are gone for good.

The first Island hopping offensive began in 1943. 10 CV's and 7 were CVE's
The first Island to be taken in this new Island hopping offensive was the Makin Atoll. The CV's reamained off in a safe distance while the CVE anchored in the atoll in order to provide immediate air cover. The CVE Liscome Bay was lost in this battle.

At Tarawa, only the Essex was a full blown CV, The Bunker Hill and Independence supporting the attack were CVE's.


So, from the first Island hopping offensive operations, the CVE's were placed closest to the action in order to support the marines ashore. They took the risks where a CV would be considered too risky.

As far as Germany was concerned, since both of my parents grew up in Nazi germany and my father was one of the few germans who came back from Stalingrad alive, I have some first hand knowlege they don't write in history books.

[Bernie109]

The ONLY reason navies after WWII did NOT use battleships was COST(Quote)

Cost vs benifit. You can bet that the Battleship Admirals tried again and again to engage the Japanese in a classic battleship skirmish. By the time they arived, carrier planes finished the job. The death nell for the battleships occurred during Gulf war 1. A Silkworm missile was zigging its way through a naval formation and one of the destroyers CIWS units accidently hosed off the Wisconsin. The Depleted uranium rounds penatrated the battleships armor. The cost of operations combined with the fact that it's armor was no longer effective, plus the age of the ships all made them no longer practical. The Zumwalt class land attack destroyer comming on line will be using a new VLS shore bombartment rocket that will outclass the 16 inch guns of the old BB's and it's 155MM gun will be able to hit targets 100 miles inland. All with a 90 man crew. So, the BB's are done.

[polishshooter]

Wrong again, the "Battleship Admirals" SUCCEEDED in fighting Japanese battleships off Guadalcanal, and again off Surigao strait. And did quite well, incidentally.

Throw in the battle against the Bismarck, British against the Scharnhorst, the British against the Italians many times, and the British, and later the Massachusetts against the French BBs in Africa, Battleships had a GREAT record in WWII, against Battleships. Again, there were more BB vs. BB engagements in WWII than Carrier vs. Carrier.

We broke off Midway because of the THREAT of BBs Yamato had, and there is some argument that he SHOULD have kept coming, Midway was neutralized, our two carriers left had depleted crews, virtually no torpedoes or torpedo planes left, about 50% fighters missing or too damaged to fly, and few 1000 lb AP bombs left. Yamamotos BIGGEST mistake was putting the "Main Body" so far behind the "Striking force." Even with the crappy Jap AA, they would have provided better AA cover for the carriers, as well as caused a lot of attackers to divert to them, from the carriers, as well as possibly closing for the kill. And the British had already taught us what happened when a carrier got into gun range of a BB...a sitting duck.

But in shore bombardment it excelled, on both sides. The reason Ching Lee raced to Guadalcanal, was that the night before Cactus was PULVERIZED by the Japanese battlewagons, ask ANY Marine survivor about "The Bombardment...." the next day was the FIRST day anyone on Cactus contemplated surrender...and the ONLY thing that we had to stop the Japs was a few remaining Dauntlesses, and those 16" naval guns.....

No, the BB acquitted itself well in WWII, and was not a waste of resources, excepting the German "Pocket Battleships". You can BET if the Russians had BBs after WWII, or built them later, we would have finished the Kentucky, the Brits would have finished their last two as well.





The use I foresee for the Battleship, is as an SOF offshore base, like we used the Nimitz in Afghanistan, crude though it was, it was effective, even if it could not defend itself. With few modifications, such as removing the after turret for a V/STOL deck; we have already upgraded the fire control systems and communications in the late 80s with an upgrade in the 90s, it would be a great floating advanced base to place anywhere. BESIDES giving a deterrent second to none, with just the SIGHT of it offshore. Gunboat diplomacy WORKS.

Plus, its a floating supertanker, as well, virtually self-sufficient for extended operations.

You also seem to forget, that our current asymmetrical wars are NOT against anyone firing DU rounds, and PROBABLY never will be, BUT those same 16" guns, AWED Hezbollah once, had Iraquis surrendering to the spotter DRONES in Kuwait after just one fire mission. The BEST A/Ship weapon available to any foreseable adversary is a Silkworm or Exocet, and we know it will FRY lightweight alloy armor. And those Frigates would not withstand DU rounds either, and would sink them, not like a battlewagon. Granted, a nuke would take it out, but would any other ship, probably the whole task force, as well. And we would not need 4000 sailors to man one any more either. THAT was the expense. We still have 16" barrels and projectiles in storage left over from WWII, it was WWII era GP and AP projectiles we were firing in 1991. They are MUCH cheaper for continued fire missions than any $1 million missile would be for a quite a while.

You seem so mesmerized by the effect of the DU rounds, you forget that Battleship armor AT THE TIME was vulnerable to Battleship plunging fire as well, along with bomb and torpedoes. It just took a LOT more of them to sink one, than any other type of warship. It still would.

But US BBs were INVULNERABLE to air attack of conventional means after computer assisted radar fire control coupled with proximity fuses for the 5"38s and the 40mms became standard in 1944, even against kamikazes. There is no reason to think with SAA missiles and CAWS they would not remain invulnerable to aircraft today, even WITHOUT the assurance of superior fighter cover, which no country or entity we are liable to fight can match.

[Bernie109]

The Kentucky was launched and set aside in 1943. It was scrapped after the war.
The cost of operating these floating Harley Davidsons is too great compared to the benifit. Naval sex appeal is the main reason for them. They are all gone now. The Iowa was stricken from the naval register and is now available as a musiem.

[polishshooter]

Naw, Bernie, they were for much more than "Sex Appeal," they were the "Nuclear Weapons" of the pre-atomic age. The 75 or 80 years of naval history where they commanded the seas is a fascinating study. In fact, when the French in effect nullified 300 years of Royal Navy domination of the seas just by by launching the Gloire, it was a watershed.

Granted, in MANY navies right up to WWII they were the ULTIMATE command, at the expense of everything else, such as the British, where only "has-been" or "Never coulds" commanded lowly CARRIERS, but one of the reasons the USN was so good in WWII was the fact we were the ONLY navy where aviators were NOT denied sea commands, and commanding a carrier was as prestigious as a BB. Only the Japanese came close, but STILL a "real" Jap Admiral commanded 'wagons.

Now you are right in one sense, that Battleships rarely ever fought each other, not that they COULDN'T, but the fact that each grew to represent something far greater than naval power, National Prestige....sinking a BB or even a battlecruiser had a MUCH deeper affect on the national morale of any nation than even a carrier, even as late as WWII. The thousands of civilians weeping in public over the loss of the Hood, or POW, or the Bismarck was not just for the loss of life. Maybe it was a GOOD thing in at least that regard, that we had 5 sunk at one time at Pearl, America really never got THAT attached to any Battleship, except PERHAPS the Iowa Class AFTER WWII.

It's easy to belittle the impact of the BBs on WWII, but much of THAT stems from the fact we had virtually NO "modern" Battleships available after Pearl, for a few years, and we HAD to assure the public we could still win without them, hence all the official and unofficial "obituaries" of the BB after Pearl, and two weeks later when the grossly inadequately AA armed POW and Repulse wandered into waters coincidentally in range of at the time two of the RARE (possibly ONLY) Japanese land based medium bomber squadrons extensively trained in the use of, and armed with, the BEST torpedoes in the world at the time...while the covering RAF fighters from Singapore circled vainly 50 miles away wondering where the ships they were to cover were....


But the Obits WERE premature, the BBs played a MAJOR role in WWII, in both the European and Pacific Theaters, both ship to ship, and ship to shore, as well as AA protection for the fleet when we finally dumped the 1.1" trips and loaded 60+ 40mms on them, increased the 5"38s, AND gave them radar control and proximity fuses.

I believe there were only TWO Battleships sunk at sea, by CARRIER planes alone, the Yamato and the Musashi....and it took almost more hits to sink them than we scored in TOTAL at Midway and Coral Sea combined. If the Japs had ever figured out shipborne AA fire control and had decent AA guns (thank God for our pilot's sake they never did) I maintain they would NEVER have been sunk by aircraft alone, but would have had to be sunk by 16 inchers, or torpedoes from lesser ships or subs. And most of the damage was done on both by torpedoes, they weathered even the 1000# bombs pretty well...if the SAME battles had occured a year earlier in '43 when ALL our torpedoes sucked, they would have survived AND done damage when they got there.

No, Carriers were only effective in sinking old anchored Battleships, (OK, NEW Italian ones too...)surprised in the harbor, with no watertight integrity, and virtually no AA fire, until it was too late. And that is also EXACTLY only what Billy Mitchell had proved too..against stationary OLD battleships NOT firing back, with all watertight doors OPEN, aircraft WERE pretty effective.....(as long as there were scuttling charges in place, set off when the aircraft dropped, just in case....)


This is one of the "Conventional Wisdoms" of World War II I love to argue...

[Pistolenschutze]

Back on a battleship rant again I see, Polish! Ok, what you say certainly contains some truth, but I think you oversimplify. Battleships had--and perhaps even still have--a valid place in the scheme of naval warfare, but you sound as if the carriers were, and are, a complete waste of steel and ballast. That's nonsense. The point you are missing, I think, is the ability to PROJECT power. Even an Iowa class with 16" rifled cannon can only range out around 20 miles or so. Aircraft from a carrier can attack targets hundreds of miles distant, and do so effectively. As bombardment and anti-aircraft platforms, they performed superbly in WWII. And granted, in that conflict they even served admirably, on a few occasions at least, against surface ships. Yet battleships are voratious users of both manpower and maintence cost. That's true of carriers too, of course, but carriers can bring a far higher return for the investment due to their power to project force, especially in the naval warfare of today.

[Bernie109]

Being a 26 year Navy Vet, I have some "Inside information". The battleships were quite effective as shore bombardment assets, their Cruise missiles made them even more efective and as long as they had service life left in them, it was not a bad idea to bring them back. They perfromed well but nobody would have ever considered building new ones today.
Even in WW2, ther was a poem titeled "Battleships are title B". In it, it describes the awesome appearance and image they project but concludes that "They fill the Japs with fear and hate while moored inside the Golden Gate". It goes on to say that Carriers and Submarines are the real tools with which to win the war ending with "Sure you will have losses but what the hell! Young LT's fly the planes and LCDR's cammand the Subs"

By the way, The South Dakota Class battleships were already in the water at the time of Pearl harbor and the Iowa was fitting out. There were two reasons we built the carriers:

1) There was a 20 year moratorium on battleship construction but none on carriers.

2) Because of the great Depression, they needed to create Jobs.

[Bernie109]

While the official reason for bringing back the battleships was shore bombardment, the real reason was that when Reagan became President, the navy embarked on what was called "Project Pride". it was to bring back a lot of old traditions for traditions sake. When the Soviets built the Kirov, we needed to counter it with our own "Show Boat". When the iowa was first commisioned, the ship could hardly function due to non funtional traditions being strickly enforced. There were parts of the ship where nobody was allowed unles they were in dress uniforms. Evening meal All hands had to attend in Dress blues. You had to change uniforms every time you rounded a corner. The real reaon for the iowa Turret explosion was, in a nutshell, the crew spent more time polishing the guns than they did maintaining them and learning how to operate them. Even on the sub I was on, the CO had hundreds of feet of stainless steel pipe ripped out and replaced with brass.
Any failure to keep the brass polished resulted in severe punishment.

An FFG-7 really went overboard with tradition for traditions sake. The FFG-7 was designed with new ship control concepts. The helmsman, messenger, and engine telegragh operator were combined into one watch station where the helmsman sat in a cockpit like enclosure. The engines were controlled directly from the helm by aircraft style throttles, the helm was a tiny dial on the computer console. The CO decided this was "Not traditional". he had the seat ripped out, Installed a traditional engine order telegraph and forced the engine room to operate in local control, had a brass wheel made to replce the dial, and had three men standing in a spot designed for one man sitting, each to operate his "Traditional" controls.

[Bernie109]

Since both of my parents grew up in Nazi Germany, I have an inside perspective. It is quite arrogant to say that Germany had a duty to abide by the treaty of Versales. Even Woodrow Wilson warned that it would lead to another war. As did Churchill. With 65% unemployment, 10,000% infaltion, and people litteraly starving in the streets the Germans had a choice. Continue starving or go back to war. The Wiemar Republic was dead. It was a battle between two choices...The Nazis or the Comunists.

Actually, if you take the long view, Germany did win one thing.
They shook off the Treaty of Versales for the Marshal plan. That in and of its self is a victory.

[LIKTOSHOOT]

I believe the question was "could Hitler have won WWII?"

Not no.....but Hell no!

Germany flew it`s first jet in what???1942 Hitler said No
Build Long range bombers in 1943.....?? Hitler said no.

If it wasn`t his idea, it was no and so the question is answered....NO!

LTS