Georg Elser kills Hitler in 1939

Post by WolfBear
What if Georg Elser had succeeded in killing Adolf Hitler in 1939?
As for my answer, I suspect that Goering--the new German Fuhrer as per Hitler's instructions--will try immediately seeking a face-saving end to the war (to be followed by economic reforms in response to the overheating of the German economy). Now, the crucial question is this--are Britain and France willing to offer enough to Goering for him to make peace? Indeed, I suspect that the absolute minimum that Britain and France would be prepared to settle for is having Germany withdraw to its pre-March 1939 borders (perhaps minus the Memelland). That means a German withdrawal from Poland, Danzig, and Czechia (minus the Sudetenland). Indeed, can Goering swallow that?
Also, *if* Britain's and France's peace terms are too much for Goering and the war continues, I expect the outcome of the Western campaign in 1940 to end up similar to our TL. Basically, I just don't see any good options for Goering other than using the Manstein Plan--and even that was a gamble (albeit with potential for success)!
Anyway, if France is still knocked out of the war in this TL, I suspect that Goering would be more willing to make an anti-British alliance with the Soviet Union than Hitler was. (For the record, Stalin and Molotov actually appears to have been interested in this idea in late 1940 in our TL. Hitler rejected it since Stalin was demanding too much and since he thought that invading the Soviet Union--a long ambition of his--was going to be a piece of cake.) Indeed, without thoughts of Lebensraum clouding his judgment (Goering strikes me as more of a luxury and party man rather than an ideologue), I suspect that Goering would have concluded that knocking Britain out of the war is more important than trying to conquer additional territory in the East. After all, Germany already has Czechia and western Poland as Lebensraum!
As for the Jews, I suspect that there would be a much smaller Holocaust in this TL. Since Goering was less of an ideologue than Hitler was, I suspect that he'd use the healthy Jews for forced labor as opposed to killing them outright. He might unfortunately and tragically kill the old and unhealthy Jews, though. :(
Anyway, any thoughts on what I wrote here?

When is this in 1939? Since you say Poland and Danzig we can assume after Sept 27th.

WolfBear

2017-11-05 02:23:40 UTC

Post by Insane Ranter

When is this in 1939? Since you say Poland and Danzig we can assume after Sept 27th.

Yes; it was on November 8, 1939:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_Elser

Ned Latham

2017-11-05 08:00:55 UTC

Post by WolfBear
What if Georg Elser had succeeded in killing Adolf Hitler in 1939?
As for my answer, I suspect that Goering--the new German Fuhrer as
per Hitler's instructions--will try immediately seeking a
face-saving end to the war (to be followed by economic reforms in
response to the overheating of the German economy). Now, the
crucial question is this--are Britain and France willing to offer
enough to Goering for him to make peace? Indeed, I suspect that
the absolute minimum that Britain and France would be prepared
to settle for is having Germany withdraw to its pre-March 1939
borders (perhaps minus the Memelland). That means a German
withdrawal from Poland, Danzig, and Czechia (minus the
Sudetenland). Indeed, can Goering swallow that?
Also, *if* Britain's and France's peace terms are too much for
Goering and the war continues, I expect the outcome of the Western
campaign in 1940 to end up similar to our TL. Basically, I just
don't see any good options for Goering other than using the
Manstein Plan--and even that was a gamble (albeit with potential
for success)!
Anyway, if France is still knocked out of the war in this TL, I
suspect that Goering would be more willing to make an anti-British
alliance with the Soviet Union than Hitler was. (For the record,
Stalin and Molotov actually appears to have been interested in
this idea in late 1940 in our TL. Hitler rejected it since Stalin
was demanding too much and since he thought that invading the
Soviet Union--a long ambition of his--was going to be a piece of
cake.) Indeed, without thoughts of Lebensraum clouding his
judgment (Goering strikes me as more of a luxury and party man
rather than an ideologue), I suspect that Goering would have
concluded that knocking Britain out of the war is more important
than trying to conquer additional territory in the East. After
all, Germany already has Czechia and western Poland as Lebensraum!
As for the Jews, I suspect that there would be a much smaller
Holocaust in this TL. Since Goering was less of an ideologue
than Hitler was, I suspect that he'd use the healthy Jews for
forced labor as opposed to killing them outright.

That, despite the propaganda you've swallowed, is what happened
in OTL. The millions of slave workers in the camps died from
overwork and malnutrition, not overt murder.

Post by WolfBear
He might unfortunately and tragically kill the old and unhealthy
Jews, though. :(

*Everyone* in the camps became unhealthy once the allied blockades
began to bite.

Post by WolfBear
Anyway, any thoughts on what I wrote here?

Göring was more urbane than Hitler: he might have been less intent
on rounding up Jews and communists than Hitler was, and he might
have been far more open to the idea of developing a common purpose
with the USSR. After all, both regimes were socialist, of a sort.

I don't see that he'd have seen the USSR as useful again Britain,
though. Not directly, at any rate.

OTOH, he might see merit in negotiating the USSR into the Axis,
and in 1941 joining all the Axis powers into an alliance, first
against the USA, then, if they remained obdurate, Britain.

Rich Rostrom

2017-11-06 07:33:04 UTC

Post by Ned Latham
That, despite the propaganda you've swallowed, is what happened
in OTL. The millions of slave workers in the camps died from
overwork and malnutrition, not overt murder.

Despite the Nazi-apologist lies _you've_ swallowed,
the great majority of Nazi victims were deliberately
murdered.

The _death_ camps at Maidanek, Sobibor, Treblinka,
Belzec, and Chelmno had no factories - only gas
chambers and crematoriums. (Auschwitz had some
factories as well.)

The Nazis had no use for Jewish children, for elderly
Jews, or for any other Jews who were not fit for slave
labor - all of them were killed out of hand.

Even healthy Jewish men were often killed; Speer had
constant fights with the SS because they wanted to
kill all Jews, whereas Speer wanted some to be kept
alive to work. Oskar Schindler was able to preserve a
handful of Jews by vouching for them as useful workers
in his factory, but it was a continuous effort on his
part to keep the SS from just killing them.

Entire Jewish communities were massacred by
Einsatzgruppen and by Wehrmacht police units. These
massacres started in Poland, where entire Jewish
villages were slaughtered, and culminated in the
gigantic massacres of Odessa and Babi Yar.

All this was _in_ _addition_ to the millions of Soviet
PoWs killed by the Nazis, and mass murder of Poles,
Gypsies, and any other ethnicity or nationality which
the Nazis decided was a problem.

This newsgroup was infested for years by disgusting
neo-Nazi Matt Giwer. Are you trying to fill his place?

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Ned Latham

2017-11-06 08:33:46 UTC

Post by Ned Latham
That, despite the propaganda you've swallowed, is what happened
in OTL. The millions of slave workers in the camps died from
overwork and malnutrition, not overt murder.

Despite the Nazi-apologist lies _you've_ swallowed,
the great majority of Nazi victims were deliberately
murdered.

----sanup----

Post by Rich Rostrom
This newsgroup was infested for years by disgusting
neo-Nazi Matt Giwer. Are you trying to fill his place?

Nah. I just reject bullshit. Including yours.

Alex Milman

2017-11-07 22:00:42 UTC

Post by Ned Latham
That, despite the propaganda you've swallowed, is what happened
in OTL. The millions of slave workers in the camps died from
overwork and malnutrition, not overt murder.

Despite the Nazi-apologist lies _you've_ swallowed,
the great majority of Nazi victims were deliberately
murdered.

----sanup----

Post by Rich Rostrom
This newsgroup was infested for years by disgusting
neo-Nazi Matt Giwer. Are you trying to fill his place?

Nah. I just reject bullshit. Including yours.

Are you denying the mass murders committed by the Nazi?

Ned Latham

2017-11-08 00:33:13 UTC

Post by Ned Latham
That, despite the propaganda you've swallowed, is what happened
in OTL. The millions of slave workers in the camps died from
overwork and malnutrition, not overt murder.

Despite the Nazi-apologist lies _you've_ swallowed,
the great majority of Nazi victims were deliberately
murdered.

----sanup----

Post by Rich Rostrom
This newsgroup was infested for years by disgusting
neo-Nazi Matt Giwer. Are you trying to fill his place?

Nah. I just reject bullshit. Including yours.

Are you denying the mass murders committed by the Nazi?

Iuse you scone, idiot. Try not to ask stupid questions.

For the record, I don't deny *anything* that *anyone* committed.

Alex Milman

2017-11-08 00:44:06 UTC

Post by Ned Latham
That, despite the propaganda you've swallowed, is what happened
in OTL. The millions of slave workers in the camps died from
overwork and malnutrition, not overt murder.

Despite the Nazi-apologist lies _you've_ swallowed,
the great majority of Nazi victims were deliberately
murdered.

----sanup----

Post by Rich Rostrom
This newsgroup was infested for years by disgusting
neo-Nazi Matt Giwer. Are you trying to fill his place?

Nah. I just reject bullshit. Including yours.

Are you denying the mass murders committed by the Nazi?

Iuse you scone, idiot.

You can see idiot in a mirror, asshole.

Post by Ned Latham
Try not to ask stupid questions.

Try not to write idiocies.

Ned Latham

2017-11-08 06:41:30 UTC

Post by Ned Latham
That, despite the propaganda you've swallowed, is what happened
in OTL. The millions of slave workers in the camps died from
overwork and malnutrition, not overt murder.

Despite the Nazi-apologist lies _you've_ swallowed,
the great majority of Nazi victims were deliberately
murdered.

----sanup----

Post by Rich Rostrom
This newsgroup was infested for years by disgusting
neo-Nazi Matt Giwer. Are you trying to fill his place?

Nah. I just reject bullshit. Including yours.

Are you denying the mass murders committed by the Nazi?

Use your scone, idiot.

You can see idiot in a mirror, asshole.

Ig you're thjere, sure.

Try not to ask stupid questions.

Try not to write idiocies.

I have to try to keep it down to your level. dimwit.
I wouldn't want to confuse you now, would I?

Why the dishonest snip, Alex? Can't you handle the truth?

SolomonW

2017-11-06 08:54:21 UTC

Post by Ned Latham
That, despite the propaganda you've swallowed, is what happened
in OTL. The millions of slave workers in the camps died from
overwork and malnutrition, not overt murder.

Despite the Nazi-apologist lies _you've_ swallowed,
the great majority of Nazi victims were deliberately
murdered.
The _death_ camps at Maidanek, Sobibor, Treblinka,
Belzec, and Chelmno had no factories - only gas
chambers and crematoriums. (Auschwitz had some
factories as well.)
The Nazis had no use for Jewish children, for elderly
Jews, or for any other Jews who were not fit for slave
labor - all of them were killed out of hand.
Even healthy Jewish men were often killed; Speer had
constant fights with the SS because they wanted to
kill all Jews, whereas Speer wanted some to be kept
alive to work. Oskar Schindler was able to preserve a
handful of Jews by vouching for them as useful workers
in his factory, but it was a continuous effort on his
part to keep the SS from just killing them.
Entire Jewish communities were massacred by
Einsatzgruppen and by Wehrmacht police units. These
massacres started in Poland, where entire Jewish
villages were slaughtered, and culminated in the
gigantic massacres of Odessa and Babi Yar.
All this was _in_ _addition_ to the millions of Soviet
PoWs killed by the Nazis, and mass murder of Poles,
Gypsies, and any other ethnicity or nationality which
the Nazis decided was a problem.
This newsgroup was infested for years by disgusting
neo-Nazi Matt Giwer. Are you trying to fill his place?

Ned Latham is no neo-NAZI

This may be part of the reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

Although NAZI Germany did have enough food, it was only just and was
achieved by killing large numbers of people.

The problem that Goring faces here is food. The only part of Europe that
has a significant food surplus is Russia, which Goring is unlikely to
attack so he needs to trade with Russia.

Ned Latham

2017-11-06 10:00:59 UTC

----snip----

Post by Rich Rostrom
This newsgroup was infested for years by disgusting
neo-Nazi Matt Giwer. Are you trying to fill his place?

Ned Latham is no neo-NAZI

Thankyou for that, Sol. There aren't enough people around who can
read and understand and remember.

Post by SolomonW
This may be part of the reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

It does indeed underly what I said. Those food supplies were for
German soldiers and civilians, not for the "untermenschen" they
were stolen from, and not for the "undesirables" in the work camps.

Post by SolomonW
Although NAZI Germany did have enough food, it was only just and was
achieved by killing large numbers of people.
The problem that Goring faces here is food. The only part of Europe
that has a significant food surplus is Russia, which Goring is
unlikely to attack so he needs to trade with Russia.

The *really* interesting question about an Elser success lies in
Göring's reaction to the bomber attack on Köln in 1940. Hitler
reacted to that with rage, and ordered the Luftwaffe to attack
British cities in revenge. In doing so, he aborted the strategic
attacks that were in progress against British airfields and the
RAF, and thus lost the Battle of Britain. But Göring was not only
more urbane than Hitler, he was himself a wartime pilot and
almost certainly understood the power and limitations of air war
far better than Hitler did.

Events in OTL make it quite clear that the Germans had no idea
how close the RAF was to collapse, but close it was. If Göring
remained steadfast at that point, the RAF would have to retreat
west and north, leaving the English Channel to the Germans. And
the RN would be unable to do much because of the Luftwaffe's
air supremacy.

That could have far-reaching consequences. Maybe even convert
operation Sea Lion from a pipe-dream to a reality.

The Horny Goat

2017-11-06 21:25:16 UTC

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 04:00:59 -0600, Ned Latham

Post by Ned Latham
Events in OTL make it quite clear that the Germans had no idea
how close the RAF was to collapse, but close it was. If Göring
remained steadfast at that point, the RAF would have to retreat
west and north, leaving the English Channel to the Germans. And
the RN would be unable to do much because of the Luftwaffe's
air supremacy.
That could have far-reaching consequences. Maybe even convert
operation Sea Lion from a pipe-dream to a reality.

Had a serious effort been made to develop a serious anti-shipping
effort (for instance by the developmnt of air-launched torpedoes)
pre-war you might have a point.

Fact is, Germany DIDN'T have such a capability and there is a limit to
what you can do to moving ships with high explosive bombs.

Such a capability would have been very useful to them vs the British
in Norway as well but as things stood there was no real possibility of
damaging enough of the Royal Navy to convert Sealion from anything
other than a pipedream.

Ned Latham

2017-11-06 22:28:04 UTC

Had a serious effort been made to develop a serious anti-shipping
effort (for instance by the developmnt of air-launched torpedoes)
pre-war you might have a point.

They would have been useful, that's true.

Post by The Horny Goat
Fact is, Germany DIDN'T have such a capability and there is a limit
to what you can do to moving ships with high explosive bombs.

There are limits to everyting. The sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and
HMS Repulse by the Japanese in 1941 indicates that high level bombers
could be very useful indeed against capital ships.

And their dive bombers were devastating on land. There's no reason
to imagine that they couldn't deliver AP bombs.

And there's no reason to imagine that Göring wouldn't learn something
about torpedo bombers from the British and Japanese exmples. That the
Germans didn't in OTL means nothing: they *lost* the Battle of Britain,
and were forced into develop,emt efforts tpwards regaining it. The
very easily-achievable victory in that battle that Hitler;s rage
sacrified would have opened up opportunities for them on all fronts.

Post by The Horny Goat
Such a capability would have been very useful to them vs the British
in Norway as well

In what situation? Norway was an unqualified success.

Post by The Horny Goat
but as things stood there was no real possibility of
damaging enough of the Royal Navy to convert Sealion from anything
other than a pipedream.

Funny that the RN never ventured out in force. Even *after* the
British gained air superiority, it was more effective as a threat
than operationally. As late as 1942, the German capital ships
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were able to make a dash through the
Channel from Brest to Kiel without any interference from the RN.

Rich Rostrom

2017-11-07 17:04:03 UTC

Post by Ned Latham
There are limits to everyting. The sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and
HMS Repulse by the Japanese in 1941 indicates that high level bombers
could be very useful indeed against capital ships.

REPULSE and PRINCE OF WALES were sunk by _torpedo_ bombers,
not high-level bombers. The only high-level bomber attack
on Force Z scored one ineffective bomb hit.

Post by Ned Latham
And their dive bombers were devastating on land.
There's no reason to imagine that they couldn't
deliver AP bombs.

There is a great difference between bombing targets on
land, which are not moving, and ships at sea, which are.

Aerial attack could be very dangerous to ships at sea,

*********************************************************
* when delivered with aircraft designed or adapted for *
* that purpose, flown by pilots who are well-trained in *
* such attacks. *
*********************************************************

The Germans in 1940 had no such planes or pilots. They
later adapted some planes for maritime attack, and trained
some pilots to strike moving ships. By spring 1941, they
could do it, though they were never particularly good at it.
But in 1940, they couldn't do it at all, except by accident.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

The Horny Goat

2017-11-07 20:56:34 UTC

On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:04:03 -0600, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
The Germans in 1940 had no such planes or pilots. They
later adapted some planes for maritime attack, and trained
some pilots to strike moving ships. By spring 1941, they
could do it, though they were never particularly good at it.
But in 1940, they couldn't do it at all, except by accident.
--

Precisely my point.

There's no question in my mind that had the Luftwaffe felt that
developing an anti-ship capability was important, they could have had
such a capability had they started pre-war.

They didn't.

Ned Latham

2017-11-07 23:34:59 UTC

REPULSE and PRINCE OF WALES were sunk by _torpedo_ bombers,
not high-level bombers. The only high-level bomber attack
on Force Z scored one ineffective bomb hit.

You're not thinking clearly. The fact is that they scored a hit.
Force Z was operating in the open sea when attacked: they had
plenty of room for manoeuvre. In harbour and in and near the
English Channel the ships of the RN would have only limited
ability to manoeuvre. So limited that they'd be sitting ducks.

Post by Ned Latham
And their dive bombers were devastating on land.
There's no reason to imagine that they couldn't
deliver AP bombs.

There is a great difference between bombing targets on
land, which are not moving, and ships at sea, which are.

No. There is *some* differeence. And a stern attack oversomes
that. Especiaslly when the target is hemmed in on both flanks.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Aerial attack could be very dangerous to ships at sea,
*********************************************************
* when delivered with aircraft designed or adapted for *
* that purpose, flown by pilots who are well-trained in *
* such attacks. *
*********************************************************

Wrong. The JU 87 was fully capable of delivering effective attacks
at sea. Its use was prevented by British air superiority.

Post by Rich Rostrom
The Germans in 1940 had no such planes or pilots.

Wrong. They had the JU 87 and 88 and Me 110. In the early days of
the war Luftwaffe pilots were highly skilled. They could have
adapted to the requirements of bombing shipping.

Post by Rich Rostrom
They later adapted some planes for maritime attack, and trained
some pilots to strike moving ships.

You're talking about aircraft capable of operating under enemy
air superiority. In 1940, with the Battle of britain won, the
JU 87 and 88 and the Me 110 would have been quite sufficient
for the task because the Luftwaffe would have owned the sky.

Post by Rich Rostrom
By spring 1941, they could do it, though they were never
particularly good at it. But in 1940, they couldn't do it
at all, except by accident.

They never haad a decent shot at it. Hitler threw the
opportunity away.

The Horny Goat

2017-11-08 03:09:32 UTC

On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:34:59 -0600, Ned Latham

Post by Rich Rostrom
REPULSE and PRINCE OF WALES were sunk by _torpedo_ bombers,
not high-level bombers. The only high-level bomber attack
on Force Z scored one ineffective bomb hit.

Any book I've read suggests strongly that an anti-Sealion effort would
be primarily a destroyer battle and those of course are much more
maneuverable.

It certainly doesn't take a 12" - 14" shell to stop an invasion barge.

Ned Latham

2017-11-08 05:27:46 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom
REPULSE and PRINCE OF WALES were sunk by _torpedo_ bombers,
not high-level bombers. The only high-level bomber attack
on Force Z scored one ineffective bomb hit.

Any book I've read suggests strongly that an anti-Sealion effort would
be primarily a destroyer battle and those of course are much more
maneuverable.

Armchair experts (and yes, I am one) often miss salient factors;
for example, the Germans would be able to heep watch on all the
ports from which a defending force could emerge: in fact they
could attack them; the coast would be vulnerable all the way from
Portsmouth to Scapa Flow, Whether attack would be the best idea
I coiulon't say, but there are only two approaches to the crossing
(wherever is is), and I'd think a massing of U-boats and anti-ship
aircraft at the approriate time and places would wreak havoc with
any effort to beat off the landing force. Especiallly if it was
supported with well-placed minefields and preceded by feints aimed
at reducing the British defences by attrition.

Destroyers can attack submarines effectively when they themselves
are not under attack, but how do they deal with them while evading
bombs? OTOH, how do they evade bomn atacks when making an attack
run on a U-boat? And how do they attack a force of U-boats idling
behind a minefield?

Post by The Horny Goat
It certainly doesn't take a 12" - 14" shell to stop an invasion barge.

True. MTBs and MGBs could do it. But having won the Battle of
Britain, the germans would have the initiative, and if they
used it well, the invasion force could be protected.

We've been treated to conflicting views of Hitler: he was a
genius, he was a madman, he was a fool... and certainly he
made some bad mistakes in his direction of the war, with
operation Barbarossa being possibly the most stupid mistake
of all time, but no-one AFAIK, has ever pointed out the
importance of his decision to abandon the strategic attack
on British airfields and the RAF after the British attack
on Köln. With that decision, Germany lost the initiative,
and never again managed to be a serious threat. It's my
opinion that *that* decision is the mistake that lost
Germany the war.

The Horny Goat

2017-11-08 17:12:03 UTC

On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 23:27:46 -0600, Ned Latham

Post by Ned Latham
Destroyers can attack submarines effectively when they themselves
are not under attack, but how do they deal with them while evading
bombs? OTOH, how do they evade bomn atacks when making an attack
run on a U-boat? And how do they attack a force of U-boats idling
behind a minefield?

Minefields aren't impregnable and the Kriegsmarine was not nearly as
effective in mine laying as believed. Plus Britain did have a lot of
destroyers and the captains of these were the most hellbent for
leather naval officers in the service.

I cannot visualize any potential target that they would try harder to
block than a German invasion including the U-boat threat. I do not see
U-boats being effective in the path of the landing force though
possibly on both sides of it to block ships. That said Britain killed
a lot of U-boats with destroyers.

Post by The Horny Goat
It certainly doesn't take a 12" - 14" shell to stop an invasion barge.

True. MTBs and MGBs could do it. But having won the Battle of
Britain, the germans would have the initiative, and if they
used it well, the invasion force could be protected.

Again what kind of anti-ship capacity do you think the Luftwaffe had?
It takes more than the sort of ordnance German fighters had to kill a
destroyer - machine gun bullets alone are not going to do it.

Post by Ned Latham
We've been treated to conflicting views of Hitler: he was a
genius, he was a madman, he was a fool... and certainly he
made some bad mistakes in his direction of the war, with
operation Barbarossa being possibly the most stupid mistake
of all time, but no-one AFAIK, has ever pointed out the
importance of his decision to abandon the strategic attack
on British airfields and the RAF after the British attack
on Köln. With that decision, Germany lost the initiative,
and never again managed to be a serious threat. It's my
opinion that *that* decision is the mistake that lost
Germany the war.

Obviously numerous German errors were made in 1940 and elsewhere. If a
German victory over the UK is going to be the result you have to have
had changes BEFORE the war - that or a failure of political will in
London.

Ned Latham

2017-11-08 22:36:07 UTC

Minefields aren't impregnable and the Kriegsmarine was not nearly as
effective in mine laying as believed.

But they weren't incompetent, either. And "not impregnable" doesn't
mean "ineffective".

Post by The Horny Goat
Plus Britain did have a lot of
destroyers and the captains of these were the most hellbent for
leather naval officers in the service.

And the Germans could hardly fail to be aware of that and set up
extensive kill zones.

Post by The Horny Goat
I cannot visualize any potential target that they would try harder to
block than a German invasion including the U-boat threat.

Nor can I.

Post by The Horny Goat
I do not see U-boats being effective in the path of the landing
force though possibly on both sides of it to block ships.

That's how I see them being used.

Post by The Horny Goat
That said Britain killed a lot of U-boats with destroyers.

Much later, in the Battle of the Atlantic. And it took a lot of
thought, experimentation, and organisation to do it. Indeed, had
the U-boat service beem less of a one-trick pony, they might
not have succeeded.

The interval between the German Battle of Britain victory and the
Sea Lion effort is crucial. While the Germans are building up the
transport fleet and the Luftwaffe, and the Luftwaffe are considering
and practising ways and means of effectively attacking warships in
large numbers, what are the British doing?

Certainly they're working their out-of-range factories at top
capactity, And the effort will be heavily biassed towards
the defence: Spitfires and Hurricanes, in particular. And maybe
they'd arm them with cannon. And they'd be looking for aircraft
to attack the invasion fleet with. Would that be more Swordfish?
Would they be looking at adapting the Mosquito?

But also... How do they practice anti-submarine tactics? Do
they even recognise the need to do so? How do they practice
couter-measures against the unknown anti-ship tactics the
Luftwaffe's developing?

Post by The Horny Goat
It certainly doesn't take a 12" - 14" shell to stop an invasion barge.

True. MTBs and MGBs could do it. But having won the Battle of
Britain, the germans would have the initiative, and if they
used it well, the invasion force could be protected.

They keep gunners' heads down while the dive bombers line the target
up for release. I see strafing attacks from both beams supporting
stern attacks by dive bomvers as having a good potential for success.

Obviously numerous German errors were made in 1940 and elsewhere.

IMO, not even Barbarossa is as important as that one. Both were
massively stupid, but the Köln reaction set the scene. Had Germany
first defeated, or come to terms with, Britain, Barbarossa would
not have been quite so stupid. It might even have succeeded.

If the British balance of power doctrine didn't prevent it.

Post by The Horny Goat
If a German victory over the UK is going to be the result you
have to have had changes BEFORE the war

I'm not so sure of that. An intense onslaught on Britain itself
could well have done the trick. The Battle of Britain victory
would provide an opportunity for it.

Post by The Horny Goat
- that or a failure of political will in London.

Both sides were intransigent: Germany over Danzig and the Polish
Corridor, and Britain (Churchill and his supporters) over Hitler
and anti-judaism. I don't see a "failure" of political will in
Britain without undermining Churchill.

But a large invasion force would provide an ooportunity for
that.

The Horny Goat

2017-11-07 20:54:35 UTC

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 16:28:04 -0600, Ned Latham

Post by The Horny Goat
Fact is, Germany DIDN'T have such a capability and there is a limit
to what you can do to moving ships with high explosive bombs.

True - HOWEVER - the British attack on Taranto was in November 1940
which demonstrated to the Japanese that a primarily torpedo attack on
a fleet was feasible in a port and played a big role in their planning
for Pearl Harbor. November 1940 was of course after Sealion had it
been attempted.

As always, knowing something was feasible was a major plus to the
planners.

Post by Ned Latham
And there's no reason to imagine that Göring wouldn't learn something
about torpedo bombers from the British and Japanese exmples. That the
Germans didn't in OTL means nothing: they *lost* the Battle of Britain,
and were forced into develop,emt efforts tpwards regaining it. The
very easily-achievable victory in that battle that Hitler;s rage
sacrified would have opened up opportunities for them on all fronts.

Post by The Horny Goat
Such a capability would have been very useful to them vs the British
in Norway as well

In what situation? Norway was an unqualified success.

Germany lost or had critically damaged about half their fleet in
Norway - not my idea of an unqualified success. (There was a lot of
German fleet elements that were damaged in Norway sufficiently to make
them unavailable for Sealion)

Post by The Horny Goat
but as things stood there was no real possibility of
damaging enough of the Royal Navy to convert Sealion from anything
other than a pipedream.

Which as Churchill says was probably the angriest he was with anything
during the war at least until the very end when he learned that the
German atrocity talk if anything UNDER-stated the reality. That he had
known Hitler was a monster just not how monstrous to that degree.

Ned Latham

2017-11-08 00:29:30 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
Fact is, Germany DIDN'T have such a capability and there is a limit
to what you can do to moving ships with high explosive bombs.

I doubt it. Sea Lion would have required many months of preparation.
Despite winning the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe would have to
remain intensely active the whole time. They would have to move
some active squadrons to Norway and expand the training programme,
bringing some training airfields forward into Normabdy. Behind the
lines, development of new aircraft models would have to continue,
and the construction of replacement aircraft would have to be
stepped up.

A large redirection of manufacturing and training effort into
Luftwaffe requirements would be quite feasible, because the
Wehrmacht would have had little but garrison duty to perform;
and it would suit Göring's predilections down to the ground.
I think that the priority would be Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine,
Wehrmacht, in that order.

Post by The Horny Goat
As always, knowing something was feasible was a major plus to the
planners.

Yes indeed. I never understood how the septics could understand
Tananto so poorly.

Post by Ned Latham
And there's no reason to imagine that Göring wouldn't learn something
about torpedo bombers from the British and Japanese exmples. That the
Germans didn't in OTL means nothing: they *lost* the Battle of Britain,
and were forced into development efforts towards regaining it. The
very easily-achievable victory in that battle that Hitler;s rage
sacrified would have opened up opportunities for them on all fronts.

Post by The Horny Goat
Such a capability would have been very useful to them vs the British
in Norway as well

In what situation? Norway was an unqualified success.

Germany lost or had critically damaged about half their fleet in
Norway - not my idea of an unqualified success.

On that criterion, neither were the conquests of Poland, France,
Holland, Belgium...

But somehow, they muddled on.

Now though, I do get your point. A Luftwaffe ability to attack
shipping might have reduced the Kriegsmarine's damage bill.
But that would have required not only a *very* quick adaption
by Luftwaffe pilots, it would also have required Luftwaffe
access to well-equipped airfields within range of the action.

Post by The Horny Goat
(There was a lot of
German fleet elements that were damaged in Norway sufficiently to make
them unavailable for Sealion)

Depends how long it took to prepare. It could not possibly have been
less than months away.

Post by The Horny Goat
but as things stood there was no real possibility of
damaging enough of the Royal Navy to convert Sealion from anything
other than a pipedream.

Which as Churchill says was probably the angriest he was with anything
during the war

But still the RN capital ships stayed in port.

Post by The Horny Goat
at least until the very end when he learned that the
German atrocity talk if anything UNDER-stated the reality. That he had
known Hitler was a monster just not how monstrous to that degree.

An Edler success might have prevented that shit too.

The Horny Goat

2017-11-08 03:04:46 UTC

On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 18:29:30 -0600, Ned Latham

Post by The Horny Goat
True - HOWEVER - the British attack on Taranto was in November 1940
which demonstrated to the Japanese that a primarily torpedo attack on
a fleet was feasible in a port and played a big role in their planning
for Pearl Harbor. November 1940 was of course after Sealion had it
been attempted.

I get that however to me it seems that if the Luftwaffe command was
preparing for a war with Britain it would be a priority to be able to
successfully engage ships since Britain's navy not its army was
Britain's chief defence.

I understand that the Wehrmacht wanted help against the French and
that that was primarily a land battle but surely it must be obvious
that developing an anti-ship weapon (whether better torpedoes, early
missiles or whatever) would be an important part of building an air
force that could defeat the UK.

All of this is reasonably plausible even without the Taranto raid.

Post by Ned Latham
A large redirection of manufacturing and training effort into
Luftwaffe requirements would be quite feasible, because the
Wehrmacht would have had little but garrison duty to perform;
and it would suit Göring's predilections down to the ground.
I think that the priority would be Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine,
Wehrmacht, in that order.

Post by The Horny Goat
As always, knowing something was feasible was a major plus to the
planners.

Yes indeed. I never understood how the septics could understand
Tananto so poorly.

It wasn't misunderstood by the Royal Navy against the Bismarck and
especially wasn't misunderstood by the IJN. I am pretty sure the
Prince of Wales knew in 1941 that it was sailing into danger from the
air.

Post by Ned Latham
And there's no reason to imagine that Göring wouldn't learn something
about torpedo bombers from the British and Japanese exmples. That the
Germans didn't in OTL means nothing: they *lost* the Battle of Britain,
and were forced into development efforts towards regaining it. The
very easily-achievable victory in that battle that Hitler;s rage
sacrified would have opened up opportunities for them on all fronts.

Post by The Horny Goat
Such a capability would have been very useful to them vs the British
in Norway as well

In what situation? Norway was an unqualified success.

Germany lost or had critically damaged about half their fleet in
Norway - not my idea of an unqualified success.

On that criterion, neither were the conquests of Poland, France,
Holland, Belgium...

Really? What was the role of the Kriegsmarine in those battles? Norway
was pretty much the ONLY campaign in 1939-40 where the Kriegsmarine
played an important role.

Post by Ned Latham
But somehow, they muddled on.
Now though, I do get your point. A Luftwaffe ability to attack
shipping might have reduced the Kriegsmarine's damage bill.
But that would have required not only a *very* quick adaption
by Luftwaffe pilots, it would also have required Luftwaffe
access to well-equipped airfields within range of the action.
Depends how long it took to prepare. It could not possibly have been
less than months away.

A substantial part of the Kriegsmarine was either sunk or badly
damaged in Norway. This isn't open to dispute. The German navy in
September 1940 (e.g. Sealion) was NOT the German navy of September
1939. Nor was the Royal Navy of September 1940 significantly reduced.

Post by The Horny Goat
but as things stood there was no real possibility of
damaging enough of the Royal Navy to convert Sealion from anything
other than a pipedream.

As I have said several times here in this newsgroup given the hundreds
of miles of coasts that make up Britain there is no way the British
could prevent a German landing. However once German troops are in the
UK it would be obvious what areas need to be interdicted to prevent
re-supply and THAT is a much easier task for the Royal Navy. There is
no way the Wehrmacht could put enough troops into the UK with enough
supplies to conquer the UK without re-supply. Thus the ability to
re-supply (either across beaches or preferably via German held ports)
is critical and THAT would be a far easier task for the RN.

It is not sufficient for a German victory to merely get 100k German
soldiers landing in the UK if Britain is able to prevent their
re-supply. "Living off the land" is not something that is feasible in
the modern era. Do you seriously think scavenging for ammunition is
feasible?? Or fuel or a host of other modern military necessities.

Ned Latham

2017-11-08 06:36:46 UTC

Clearly they weren't. I get a distinct impression that there was a
strong desire in Germany for friendly relations with Britain. With
Churchill in charge that couldn't happen, but with Hitler out of
the way and Göring in charge, the priorities would surely be
reassessed.

Post by The Horny Goat
I understand that the Wehrmacht wanted help against the French and
that that was primarily a land battle but surely it must be obvious
that developing an anti-ship weapon (whether better torpedoes, early
missiles or whatever) would be an important part of building an air
force that could defeat the UK.

Air force AND navy, I think.

----snip----

Post by The Horny Goat
Such a capability would have been very useful to them vs
the British in Norway as well

In what situation? Norway was an unqualified success.

Germany lost or had critically damaged about half their fleet in
Norway - not my idea of an unqualified success.

On that criterion, neither were the conquests of Poland, France,
Holland, Belgium...

Really? What was the role of the Kriegsmarine in those battles?

What has that to do with it? The Germans lost men and machines in
all those actions.

----snip----

Post by The Horny Goat
but as things stood there was no real possibility of
damaging enough of the Royal Navy to convert Sealion from anything
other than a pipedream.

As I have said several times here in this newsgroup given the hundreds
of miles of coasts that make up Britain there is no way the British
could prevent a German landing.

They did so. They won the Battle of Britain, which gave them air
superiotiyu, and they bombed the (rather pitiful) gathering
invasion assets to smithereens.

Post by The Horny Goat
However once German troops are in the
UK it would be obvious what areas need to be interdicted to prevent
re-supply and THAT is a much easier task for the Royal Navy.

That reasoning is good only for beachheads. And even then, some
supply could be performed by the Luftwaffe.

Post by The Horny Goat
There is no way the Wehrmacht could put enough troops into the UK
with enough supplies to conquer the UK without re-supply. Thus the
ability to re-supply (either across beaches or preferably via
German held ports) is critical and THAT would be a far easier task
for the RN.

Again, that reasoning is good only for beachheads.

Post by The Horny Goat
It is not sufficient for a German victory to merely get 100k German
soldiers landing in the UK if Britain is able to prevent their
re-supply. "Living off the land" is not something that is feasible in
the modern era. Do you seriously think scavenging for ammunition is
feasible?? Or fuel or a host of other modern military necessities.

Nope. But I do seriously think that the German High Command would
have some strategic objectives aimed at overcoming the supply
problem. The capture of cities capable of being quickly converted
to a limited range of military manufactures, for example.

And with those troops on the ground, would you not take over the
British airfields within reach? Thus pushing British air forces
even further west and north, and harrassing the British land forces?

And what happens when the Germans interdict the Thames Estuary?

Churchill demanded unconditional surrender, which of course is
a guarantee of total war: what if, with a large force on British
soil, Göring demanded only a cessation of hostilities? And
issued orders to allow all prisoners to be released who gave
their parôle?

The Horny Goat

2017-11-08 17:04:57 UTC

On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:36:46 -0600, Ned Latham

Post by The Horny Goat
Germany lost or had critically damaged about half their fleet in
Norway - not my idea of an unqualified success.

On that criterion, neither were the conquests of Poland, France,
Holland, Belgium...

Really? What was the role of the Kriegsmarine in those battles?

What has that to do with it? The Germans lost men and machines in
all those actions.

Well obviously when you commit men and machines to battle there will
be losses. That's why war is infrequent and intense in the modern era.

Post by The Horny Goat
However once German troops are in the
UK it would be obvious what areas need to be interdicted to prevent
re-supply and THAT is a much easier task for the Royal Navy.

That reasoning is good only for beachheads. And even then, some
supply could be performed by the Luftwaffe.

Not nearly enough as the Luftwaffe demonstrated elsewhere. In any
case, in the absence of a captured port the beachhead is where the
supplies come from. With a port the port facilities become a bombing
target. (Or if on British territory a target for artillery and
saboteurs)

Churchill wrote after the war that if a port had been captured he was
prepared to use poison gas on it to slow down the Germans. I emphasize
that we are talking on British soil.

Again, that reasoning is good only for beachheads.

Obviously acquiring a working port would be target #1 for the Germans.
Equally Britain was committed to rendering any port in danger of
capture inoperable by sabotage, air attack or as stated above gas.

What sort of manufactures did you have in mind? Food sure but not
shells or POL. Even if the Germans in the UK captured 100k tons of
crude oil what good does it do them? They need gasoline, diesel and
high octane aircraft fuel.

Post by Ned Latham
And with those troops on the ground, would you not take over the
British airfields within reach? Thus pushing British air forces
even further west and north, and harrassing the British land forces?

I say again, the probability of capturing these intact is virtually
nil.

Post by Ned Latham
And what happens when the Germans interdict the Thames Estuary?
Churchill demanded unconditional surrender, which of course is
a guarantee of total war: what if, with a large force on British
soil, Göring demanded only a cessation of hostilities? And
issued orders to allow all prisoners to be released who gave
their parôle?

Unconditional surrender wasn't the doctrine in September 1940. That
came later. The essential problem in 1940 was that NO ONE believed
Hitler could be believed when making agreements of any sort. I
personally believe Goering had a bit more credibility than Hitler in
this department but not all that much.

Who knows what terms an alternate Nazi leader might have demanded.

Again no one seriously thinks Sealion would be a simple 'river
crossing' so 'a large force on British soil' isn't on - and even if
they had making a ceasefire in this situation would create a
horrendous logistics problem for the Germans that no one could believe
it would last.

Ned Latham

2017-11-08 21:32:43 UTC

----snip----

Post by The Horny Goat
However once German troops are in the
UK it would be obvious what areas need to be interdicted to prevent
re-supply and THAT is a much easier task for the Royal Navy.

That reasoning is good only for beachheads. And even then, some
supply could be performed by the Luftwaffe.

Not nearly enough as the Luftwaffe demonstrated elsewhere.

Stalingrad. But the Luftwaffe was in worse shape then than in 1940.
And had more to do.

Post by The Horny Goat
In any
case, in the absence of a captured port the beachhead is where the
supplies come from. With a port the port facilities become a bombing
target. (Or if on British territory a target for artillery and
saboteurs)

I see the Channel Islands as a template for German management of the
civilian population, but complicated by the fact of easy access from
free Britain.

Post by The Horny Goat
Churchill wrote after the war that if a port had been captured he was
prepared to use poison gas on it to slow down the Germans.

I am doubly surprised by that. On reflection, I see that in fact I
should not be surprised by it, because Churchill's attitude from
long before the war was ruthlessly belligerent, yet I never thought
of that move. And that surprises me. <gabble, gabble>

Post by The Horny Goat
I emphasize that we are talking on British soil.

Yes. I suspect that British civilian casualties in the gassed areas
would be severe.

Again, that reasoning is good only for beachheads.

Air attack is almost certainly out. Sabotage would have to be prepared
beforehand (not that I see much of a prublem there). I am still rather
stunned by the idea of gas attacks, especially on places that are
heavuly populated by British civilians.

What sort of manufactures did you have in mind?

None. I have no idea what their priorities would be in that event.
And, indeed, I don't know what the Luftwaffe's carrying caoacity
was.

Post by The Horny Goat
Food sure but not
shells or POL. Even if the Germans in the UK captured 100k tons of
crude oil what good does it do them? They need gasoline, diesel and
high octane aircraft fuel.

Those are what I'd expect them to be after. Crude without refineries
would be nothing.

I say again, the probability of capturing these intact is virtually
nil.

Airfields? Of course. But repair work would be easier than building
their own.

Unconditional surrender wasn't the doctrine in September 1940.

It hadn't been announced yet. Doesn't mean that Churchill would
have been open to any kind of negotiated peace.

Post by The Horny Goat
That came later. The essential problem in 1940 was that NO ONE
believed Hitler could be believed when making agreements of any
sort.

Well, that's the propaganda.

Post by The Horny Goat
I personally believe Goering had a bit more credibility than
Hitler in this department but not all that much.
Who knows what terms an alternate Nazi leader might have demanded.

They seem to have been unaware of Churchill's commitment to their
complete destruction, at least up to the point of the attack on
Köln, Were they at last aware of it at that point? If so, I would
expect an effort (by someone more urbane than Hitler) to undermine
him by proposing, from a position of srength, an easy way out for
the British. Reinforced by unilateral prisoner release.

Post by The Horny Goat
Again no one seriously thinks Sealion would be a simple 'river
crossing' so 'a large force on British soil' isn't on

I beg to differ. A German victory in the Battle of Britain
would change the dynamic in every theatre of the war, and
most dramatically across the Channel.

Post by The Horny Goat
- and even if they had making a ceasefire in this situation
would create a horrendous logistics problem for the Germans
that no one could believe it would last.

Not a ceasefire: a complete cessation of hostilities. A *genuine*
"peace in our time".

A ceasefire would be a feasible fallback, I suppose; its
practicality would depemd on the conditions negotiated.

The Horny Goat

2017-11-09 00:14:49 UTC

On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 15:32:43 -0600, Ned Latham

Post by The Horny Goat
Again no one seriously thinks Sealion would be a simple 'river
crossing' so 'a large force on British soil' isn't on

I beg to differ. A German victory in the Battle of Britain
would change the dynamic in every theatre of the war, and
most dramatically across the Channel.

Trouble is what does a German victory in the BoB mean?

Doesn't the RAF simply pull back to beyond German fighter range if
they're getting mauled too badly? I'm well aware the Luftwaffe bombed
Belfast in the spring of 1941 (besides London and Coventry the most
heavily bombed city in the UK) which was well beyond German fighter
cover but as long as Fighter Command continues to exist it's difficult
to determine to what extent the BoB is "won" by the Germans.

Post by The Horny Goat
- and even if they had making a ceasefire in this situation
would create a horrendous logistics problem for the Germans
that no one could believe it would last.

Not a ceasefire: a complete cessation of hostilities. A *genuine*
"peace in our time".

My point was that even if the fleet of German invasion barges were
intact at the ceasefire, maintaining sea transport while making good
the unavailability of the barges for their usual role on the Rhine and
elsewhere would have been challenging. With no British opposition it
could easily have taken till the end of 1941 to build additional
barges to support simultaneously the usual German river transport plus
shipping to Britain. It is difficult to imagine any ceasefire besides
a complete surrender where the British would supply British hulls to
move German supplies.

Post by Ned Latham
A ceasefire would be a feasible fallback, I suppose; its
practicality would depemd on the conditions negotiated.

What could the Germans give in 1940 that would be sufficient to get
British assent? What could Goering or Himmler offer any British
government? Beyond a basic ceasefire it is difficult to determine
what.

Ned Latham

2017-11-09 08:19:14 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
'a large force on British soil' isn't on

I beg to differ. A German victory in the Battle of Britain
would change the dynamic in every theatre of the war, and
most dramatically across the Channel.

Trouble is what does a German victory in the BoB mean?
Doesn't the RAF simply pull back to beyond German fighter range if
they're getting mauled too badly?

Yep. That leaves the SE coast and the Channel undefended.

Post by The Horny Goat
I'm well aware the Luftwaffe bombed
Belfast in the spring of 1941 (besides London and Coventry the most
heavily bombed city in the UK) which was well beyond German fighter
cover but as long as Fighter Command continues to exist it's difficult
to determine to what extent the BoB is "won" by the Germans.

It's very simple: the battle is won to the extent that part of
Britain itself is undefended.

Post by The Horny Goat
- and even if they had making a ceasefire in this situation
would create a horrendous logistics problem for the Germans
that no one could believe it would last.

Not a ceasefire: a complete cessation of hostilities. A *genuine*
"peace in our time".

That's pure guesswork. The invasion barges would have to be seaworthy,
but they would *not* have to be built to last.

Post by The Horny Goat
It is difficult to imagine any ceasefire besides
a complete surrender where the British would supply British hulls to
move German supplies.

The German attitude to Britain in those days puzzkes me. It seems,
notwithstanding their persistence wrt Poland, that they bent over
backwards to avoid war, and would have tried to develop an
alliance against the USSR if they could. Why Hitler would feel
that way I cannot fathom, but Göring might have been affected by
the fastidiously honourable treatment given to the Red Baron.

He might try for an alliance: I'm certain the idea would be
rebuffed, but his aristicratic bearing and sensibilities would
have their effect on the British establishment. If negotiations
were opened, on any topic, a whole new ball game begins.

It all depends on unndermining Churchill.

Post by Ned Latham
A ceasefire would be a feasible fallback, I suppose; its
practicality would depemd on the conditions negotiated.

As I saudL a unilateral prisoner release. It would severely discredit
Churchill's rhetoric. If they also managed the civilian population of
the areas they controlled as well as they managed the Channel Islands,
the reasons for the war would become less important in many people's
eyes than their (ahem) sensitive treatment of a kindred people.

Rich Rostrom

2017-11-07 17:31:40 UTC

Post by SolomonW
Ned Latham is no neo-NAZI

Then why is he making excuses for the Nazis
and denying their worst crimes in the face
of overwhelming evidence?

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Ned Latham

2017-11-07 23:44:35 UTC

Post by SolomonW
Ned Latham is no neo-NAZI

Then why is he making excuses for the Nazis

That's a lie.

Post by Rich Rostrom
and denying their worst crimes

That's a lie.

Post by Rich Rostrom
in the face of overwhelming evidence?

That's the judgement of a propaganda gull.

Take a look at those pictures of corpses, moron, and OBSERVE.
None of them are the bodies of people who'd had anything like
an adequare diet: ALL were emaciated, like the survivors; the
evidence, you cretinous retarded lying fuck, points exclusively
to starvation,.

Dimensional Traveler

2017-11-08 00:34:40 UTC

Post by SolomonW
Ned Latham is no neo-NAZI

Then why is he making excuses for the Nazis

That's a lie.

Post by Rich Rostrom
and denying their worst crimes

That's a lie.

Post by Rich Rostrom
in the face of overwhelming evidence?

That's the judgement of a propaganda gull.
Take a look at those pictures of corpses, moron, and OBSERVE.
None of them are the bodies of people who'd had anything like
an adequare diet: ALL were emaciated, like the survivors; the
evidence, you cretinous retarded lying fuck, points exclusively
to starvation,.

And the photos of the ovens and the shower rooms modified to gas the
occupants and the interviews with the survivors of those who were forced
to load the bodies of the gassed into the ovens and the reports of the
Allied forces that liberated various concentration camps and the Third
Reich's own orders, reports and papers documenting in precise detail the
experimentation to find the most efficient way to kill and dispose of
millions and the settled upon method of gassing and burning, what do
those point to?

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

Alex Milman

2017-11-08 02:40:32 UTC

Post by SolomonW
Ned Latham is no neo-NAZI

Then why is he making excuses for the Nazis

That's a lie.

Post by Rich Rostrom
and denying their worst crimes

That's a lie.

Post by Rich Rostrom
in the face of overwhelming evidence?

That's the judgement of a propaganda gull.
Take a look at those pictures of corpses, moron, and OBSERVE.
None of them are the bodies of people who'd had anything like
an adequare diet: ALL were emaciated, like the survivors; the
evidence, you cretinous retarded lying fuck, points exclusively
to starvation,.

On the Soviet territory the Nazi usually did not even bother with all that equipment: the Jews had been systematically murdered, quite often without any concentration camps being involved. Just rounded up at shot. Cases of the big cities are better known but the Jewish population of the occupied areas of Ukraine, Belorussia, Lithuania and Latvia practically disappeared. At least in the case of Lithuania there were some camps and it is known that the prisoners had been systematically executed.

Dimensional Traveler

2017-11-08 03:11:50 UTC

Post by SolomonW
Ned Latham is no neo-NAZI

Then why is he making excuses for the Nazis

That's a lie.

Post by Rich Rostrom
and denying their worst crimes

That's a lie.

Post by Rich Rostrom
in the face of overwhelming evidence?

That's the judgement of a propaganda gull.
Take a look at those pictures of corpses, moron, and OBSERVE.
None of them are the bodies of people who'd had anything like
an adequare diet: ALL were emaciated, like the survivors; the
evidence, you cretinous retarded lying fuck, points exclusively
to starvation,.

Part of why the Third Reich went with concentration camps is because
they found that executing Jews, Gypsies and other "Undermench" by firing
squad was causing what we now call PTSD among the troops doing it. They
didn't want the soldiers becoming combat ineffective from shooting
civilians like that.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

Alex Milman

2017-11-08 04:01:32 UTC

Post by SolomonW
Ned Latham is no neo-NAZI

Then why is he making excuses for the Nazis

That's a lie.

Post by Rich Rostrom
and denying their worst crimes

That's a lie.

Post by Rich Rostrom
in the face of overwhelming evidence?

That's the judgement of a propaganda gull.
Take a look at those pictures of corpses, moron, and OBSERVE.
None of them are the bodies of people who'd had anything like
an adequare diet: ALL were emaciated, like the survivors; the
evidence, you cretinous retarded lying fuck, points exclusively
to starvation,.

In the former SU the task was routinely assigned to the local collaborators and when the Germans had been used, they were usually garrison/SS troops. Taking into an account that the front-line troops had been routinely killing civilians, I have certain doubts about their sensitive souls being irreparably damaged.

Ned Latham

2017-11-08 05:43:00 UTC

----snip----

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Part of why the Third Reich went with concentration camps is because
they found that executing Jews, Gypsies and other "Undermench" by firing
squad was causing what we now call PTSD among the troops doing it. They
didn't want the soldiers becoming combat ineffective from shooting
civilians like that.

In the former SU the task was routinely assigned to the local
collaborators and when the Germans had been used, they were
usually garrison/SS troops. Taking into an account that the
front-line troops had been routinely killing civilians, I
have certain doubts about their sensitive souls being
irreparably damaged.

Pergaps you would like to see them exterminated?

Ned Latham

2017-11-08 05:35:52 UTC

Post by SolomonW
Ned Latham is no neo-NAZI

Then why is he making excuses for the Nazis

That's a lie.

Post by Rich Rostrom
and denying their worst crimes

That's a lie.

Post by Rich Rostrom
in the face of overwhelming evidence?

That's the judgement of a propaganda gull.
Take a look at those pictures of corpses, moron, and OBSERVE.
None of them are the bodies of people who'd had anything like
an adequare diet: ALL were emaciated, like the survivors; the
evidence, you cretinous retarded lying fuck, points exclusively
to starvation,.

And the photos of the ovens

Have you ever seen one that had people nearby to provide a sense
of scale?

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and the shower rooms modified to gas the occupants

Those photographs do not show modifications.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and the interviews with the survivors of those who were forced
to load the bodies of the gassed into the ovens

How many of those are there?

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and the reports of the Allied forces that liberated various
concentration camps

They all indicate extreme starvation.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and the Third Reich's own orders, reports and papers documenting
in precise detail the experimentation to find the most efficient
way to kill and dispose of millions and the settled upon method

< of gassing and burning, what do those point to?

Forgery and lies. The most efficient way to kill millions is to
deny them water.

Alex Milman

2017-11-07 22:10:03 UTC

Post by Ned Latham
That, despite the propaganda you've swallowed, is what happened
in OTL. The millions of slave workers in the camps died from
overwork and malnutrition, not overt murder.

Despite the Nazi-apologist lies _you've_ swallowed,
the great majority of Nazi victims were deliberately
murdered.
The _death_ camps at Maidanek, Sobibor, Treblinka,
Belzec, and Chelmno had no factories - only gas
chambers and crematoriums. (Auschwitz had some
factories as well.)
The Nazis had no use for Jewish children, for elderly
Jews, or for any other Jews who were not fit for slave
labor - all of them were killed out of hand.
Even healthy Jewish men were often killed; Speer had
constant fights with the SS because they wanted to
kill all Jews, whereas Speer wanted some to be kept
alive to work. Oskar Schindler was able to preserve a
handful of Jews by vouching for them as useful workers
in his factory, but it was a continuous effort on his
part to keep the SS from just killing them.
Entire Jewish communities were massacred by
Einsatzgruppen and by Wehrmacht police units. These
massacres started in Poland, where entire Jewish
villages were slaughtered, and culminated in the
gigantic massacres of Odessa and Babi Yar.
All this was _in_ _addition_ to the millions of Soviet
PoWs killed by the Nazis, and mass murder of Poles,
Gypsies, and any other ethnicity or nationality which
the Nazis decided was a problem.
This newsgroup was infested for years by disgusting
neo-Nazi Matt Giwer. Are you trying to fill his place?

Ned Latham is no neo-NAZI
This may be part of the reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

As Rich said, the people had been INTENTIONALLY MURDERED. The "rationalization" is not an excuse.

Ned Latham

2017-11-08 00:46:16 UTC

----snip----

Post by Rich Rostrom
This newsgroup was infested for years by disgusting
neo-Nazi Matt Giwer. Are you trying to fill his place?

Ned Latham is no neo-NAZI
This may be part of the reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

As Rich said, the people had been INTENTIONALLY MURDERED.

That story is a propaganda beatup. Starvation was allowed to
occur, but I do not belkieve it was deliberately induced
for the very simple reason that if you murder everyone in
sight, there's no-ome alive to produce food for your troops.

Post by Alex Milman
The "rationalization" is not an excuse.

No-one's trying to excuse what was done. You and that maggot
Rostrom can accuse 'til you're black in the face: doesn't
make anything you say true.

Alex Milman

2017-11-08 00:57:09 UTC

Post by Ned Latham
----snip----

Post by Rich Rostrom
This newsgroup was infested for years by disgusting
neo-Nazi Matt Giwer. Are you trying to fill his place?

Ned Latham is no neo-NAZI
This may be part of the reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

As Rich said, the people had been INTENTIONALLY MURDERED.

That story is a propaganda beatup.

Like Baby Yar?

Ned Latham

2017-11-08 06:45:34 UTC

Post by Ned Latham
----snip----

Post by Rich Rostrom
This newsgroup was infested for years by disgusting
neo-Nazi Matt Giwer. Are you trying to fill his place?

Ned Latham is no neo-NAZI
This may be part of the reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

As Rich said, the people had been INTENTIONALLY MURDERED.

That story is a propaganda beatup.

Like Baby Yar?

That's a different story, Alex. Why are you throwing red herrings
around? And why the dishonest snip? Can't you handle the truth?

The Horny Goat

2017-11-06 21:20:33 UTC

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 01:33:04 -0600, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
Even healthy Jewish men were often killed; Speer had
constant fights with the SS because they wanted to
kill all Jews, whereas Speer wanted some to be kept
alive to work. Oskar Schindler was able to preserve a
handful of Jews by vouching for them as useful workers
in his factory, but it was a continuous effort on his
part to keep the SS from just killing them.

Schindler's List and Sophie's Choice were both based on actual events
but with a fair bit of artistic licence by the authors. Neither work
is a work of history any more than Jean Plaidy's collected works on
Tudor matters.

It was marginally truer to the facts than the medievel English story
of Dick Whittington (or Sir Richard Whittington who 500 years later
holds the record for most times Lord Mayor of London) and the fact
that the memory of Oskar Schindler is toasted in Israel today should
tell you there was enough of the story that was true to be
commendable.

Alex Milman

2017-11-07 22:14:28 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 01:33:04 -0600, Rich Rostrom

Schindler's List and Sophie's Choice were both based on actual events
but with a fair bit of artistic licence by the authors.

OK, did you hear about Babi Yar?

The Horny Goat

2017-11-08 03:07:54 UTC

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:14:28 -0800 (PST), Alex Milman

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 01:33:04 -0600, Rich Rostrom

Schindler's List and Sophie's Choice were both based on actual events
but with a fair bit of artistic licence by the authors.

OK, did you hear about Babi Yar?

Is that aimed at me? Then of course - but I was talking about
historical fiction and Babi Yar was entirely non-fiction.

There are of course many accounts of WW2 both fictional and
non-fictional in print, movie and other media. Not all that claim to
be historical accounts actually are even if we exclude the works of
David Irving and his ilk.

John Dallman

2017-11-05 12:17:00 UTC

Post by WolfBear
That means a German withdrawal from Poland, Danzig, and Czechia
(minus the Sudetenland). Indeed, can Goering swallow that?

He might, but will the Army, the Nazi party and the SS? They've just had
a military triumph, and reclaimed the territory in Poland that was German
before WWI. Giving that up again to make peace with the UK and France may
well be too much for them.

Goering might well lose power if he pushes for this. It will be easier
for him not to "betray Hitler's example" and he doesn't dare be seen as
"stabbing the new Germany in the back."

Post by WolfBear
Anyway, if France is still knocked out of the war in this TL, I
suspect that Goering would be more willing to make an anti-British
alliance with the Soviet Union than Hitler was.

Maybe, but he won't expect it to last.

Post by WolfBear
(For the record, Stalin and Molotov actually appears to have
been interested in this idea in late 1940 in our TL.

Yes, as a means of getting the British and Germans to wear each other
down. Both parties to this alliance will be planning to break it at the
opportune moment, and expecting the other party to do the same. It won;t
be at all stable.

John

The Horny Goat

2017-11-06 04:08:51 UTC

Post by John Dallman

Post by WolfBear
That means a German withdrawal from Poland, Danzig, and Czechia
(minus the Sudetenland). Indeed, can Goering swallow that?

I can see Goering negotiating based on Germany's 1914 boundaries
(minus Alsace-Lorraine).

I can't see any German leader lasting long if he went back to the 1937
boundaries.

Germany's main problems at this point were economic and the win over
Poland and France largely solved that though that wasn't done by
Elser's assassination attempt.

SolomonW

2017-11-06 08:49:05 UTC

Post by John Dallman

Post by WolfBear
That means a German withdrawal from Poland, Danzig, and Czechia
(minus the Sudetenland). Indeed, can Goering swallow that?

I can see Goering negotiating based on Germany's 1914 boundaries
(minus Alsace-Lorraine).

Maybe he would give up France for peace.

Quite possibly although he certainly would want parts of Poland too.
However, its very hard to see Goring extend the war into Russia

Post by The Horny Goat
I can't see any German leader lasting long if he went back to the 1937
boundaries.

With the power of the NAZI party, any German leader could do what he liked,
the people would have very little say in it.

Post by The Horny Goat
Germany's main problems at this point were economic and the win over
Poland and France largely solved that though that wasn't done by
Elser's assassination attempt.

With Poland, Goring has living space.

Rich Rostrom

2017-11-06 07:36:26 UTC

Post by WolfBear
What if Georg Elser had succeeded in killing Adolf Hitler in 1939?

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Ned Latham

2017-11-06 08:37:20 UTC

Post by WolfBear
What if Georg Elser had succeeded in killing Adolf Hitler in 1939?

Pity about the poor presentation.

WolfBear

2017-11-06 23:22:24 UTC

Post by WolfBear
What if Georg Elser had succeeded in killing Adolf Hitler in 1939?

"Explosion heard around the world... Or Elser succeeds"
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/explosion-heard-around-the-world-or-elser-succeeds.233485/
Extremely well-researched TL on this topic.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

I looked at that TL. However, while it's very interesting and well-researched, I honestly do wonder if Britain and France would be willing to reward German aggression by allowing Germany to keep Danzig and the Polish Corridor (minus Gdynia).

I mean, Yes, this would result in peace and there would be the hope that the post-Hitler German government wouldn't engage in aggressive policies later on. However, it would still set a bad precedent; after all, if you invade a country, you get to permanently keep some of its territory in exchange for withdrawing from the rest of its territory. In other words, it rewards aggression. Indeed, this is why Bush Sr.'s administration appears to have been unwilling to agree to any sort of deal where Saddam Hussein would get something--such as economic aid from neighboring Arab states--in exchange for withdrawing from Kuwait. Thus, would Britain and France have been willing to reward aggression?

Rich Rostrom

2017-11-07 17:30:08 UTC

I think you underestimate just how much the Allies
feared war. Many people in the 1930s expected "the
next war" to destroy civilization. See the film
"Things To Come" based on Wells' novel, or the famous
animated short "Peace On Earth". The British civil
defense authorities' estimate for air raid casualties
in the first week of war was greater than the actual
number for the whole of WW II.

Chamberlain and Daladier went to war only when they
had decided there was no choice - war would come
sooner or later, and it was better to fight with some
allies than let them all be picked off. (Poland was
supposed to be a strongish ally.)

The events of 1939 had three major elements. First,
Germany was even more dangerous than anticipated (the
blitz of Poland). Second, Germany was hanging back
from all-out war with Britain and France (i.e. no air
raids), and the frightful consequences of such war
might still be avoided. Three, the USSR was at last on
the march.

If Goering offered peace which included renouncing
nearly all of Germany's conquests in Poland... that
would be very attractive, especially if dressed up
with a plebiscite.

Note, by the way, that the USSR had occupied eastern
Poland, and that the Allies were prepared to recognize
this conquest rather than fight the USSR. The new
Soviet border was close to the "Curzon Line" which
Britain had proposed for the Soviet-Polish border in
the 1920s.

If the Allies were willing to allow that conquest to
stand, Danzig and the Corridor would be small beer
by comparison.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

WolfBear

2018-02-17 23:50:30 UTC

I think you underestimate just how much the Allies
feared war. Many people in the 1930s expected "the
next war" to destroy civilization. See the film
"Things To Come" based on Wells' novel, or the famous
animated short "Peace On Earth". The British civil
defense authorities' estimate for air raid casualties
in the first week of war was greater than the actual
number for the whole of WW II.
Chamberlain and Daladier went to war only when they
had decided there was no choice - war would come
sooner or later, and it was better to fight with some
allies than let them all be picked off. (Poland was
supposed to be a strongish ally.)
The events of 1939 had three major elements. First,
Germany was even more dangerous than anticipated (the
blitz of Poland). Second, Germany was hanging back
from all-out war with Britain and France (i.e. no air
raids), and the frightful consequences of such war
might still be avoided. Three, the USSR was at last on
the march.
If Goering offered peace which included renouncing
nearly all of Germany's conquests in Poland... that
would be very attractive, especially if dressed up
with a plebiscite.
Note, by the way, that the USSR had occupied eastern
Poland, and that the Allies were prepared to recognize
this conquest rather than fight the USSR. The new
Soviet border was close to the "Curzon Line" which
Britain had proposed for the Soviet-Polish border in
the 1920s.
If the Allies were willing to allow that conquest to
stand, Danzig and the Corridor would be small beer
by comparison.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

These are certainly good points.

That said, though, Britain and France didn't declare war on the Soviet Union after its conquest of eastern Poland. Thus, I am unsure if Britain and France considered Soviet aggression to be as bad as German aggression.

Also, I agree that Britain and France might be willing to swallow plebiscites in the disputed areas if they strongly want to avoid war. However, one would need to figure out who exactly would participate in these plebiscites--for instance, would an ethnic German who left the Polish Corridor after WWI be allowed to participate? What about a Pole who moved to the Polish Corridor after WWI? Would he be allowed to participate? Also, is the plebiscite going to be by district (which is sort of the way that it was done in Upper Silesia, though the final map was gerrymandered in favor of Poland) or winner-take-all (as in, whoever wins the total vote gets the entire territory, even if there were some areas within this territory with a contrary majority result)?

In addition to this, if Goering was interested in genuinely asserting himself as a peacemaker and as someone who has no desire to lord over non-Germans, then surely a German withdrawal from Czechia (excluding the Sudetenland) would not be too much to ask for, correct? After all, this would show Britain and France that Goering has repudiated Hitler's Lebensraum ideology and that Goering is unwilling to tolerate bad conduct by Germany (Germany's occupation of Czechia in March 1939 violated the spirit of the Munich Agreement).

Finally, if Britain and France are willing to tolerate plebiscites in Danzig and the Polish Corridor, what is to prevent Goering from demanding plebiscites elsewhere--for instance, in Eupen and Malmedy in Belgium? Heck, Goering can occupy Eupen and Malmedy right before any armistice is signed in Europe in order to try creating a fait accompli there.

The Horny Goat

2017-11-07 20:58:18 UTC

Post by WolfBear
I looked at that TL. However, while it's very interesting and well-researched, I honestly do wonder if Britain and France would be willing to reward German aggression by allowing Germany to keep Danzig and the Polish Corridor (minus Gdynia).
I mean, Yes, this would result in peace and there would be the hope that the post-Hitler German government wouldn't engage in aggressive policies later on. However, it would still set a bad precedent; after all, if you invade a country, you get to permanently keep some of its territory in exchange for withdrawing from the rest of its territory. In other words, it rewards aggression. Indeed, this is why Bush Sr.'s administration appears to have been unwilling to agree to any sort of deal where Saddam Hussein would get something--such as economic aid from neighboring Arab states--in exchange for withdrawing from Kuwait. Thus, would Britain and France have been willing to reward aggression?

More importantly after the occupation of Prague London and Paris
didn't believe Hitler would keep ANY agreement he made.

However in this scenario Hitler is dead and Goering or someone else is
in charge which probably would have been more credible as a
peace-maker than Hitler.

a***@gmail.com

2018-03-17 13:12:02 UTC