21-09-2018, 07:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 21-09-2018, 08:29 PM by James Lateer.)
Very interesting question: If Hitler had the "new weapons" well before WWII, could he have won the War? The following bullet points will answer that IMHO:
1. The first one is the jet plane. The US and the UK had air supremacy over Germany and Japan, yet the US Strategic Bombing Survey after the War found that the strategic bombing of Germany was ineffective. Would the jet plane have changed anything?
2. They found that if the US and the UK had targeted only transportation and fuel, then the strategic bombing would have worked.
3. The US and the UK did not target fuel and transportation because they wanted to keep Hitler in the War until Hitler and Stalin had ripped each other's guts out.
4. The Italian Campaign in WWII was only carried out to keep Stalin from seizing the Vatican. We lost 2/3 of our WWII casualties in the Italian campaign. Despite that, Stalin came very close to occupation of part of Italy. Only Allen Dulles and Lyman Lemnitzer stood in his way with the "separate peace" behind the back of Roosevelt.
5. If Hitler had jet planes, then maybe he could have gotten air supremacy over the UK. But the US would have had their own jet planes to send to Europe within a year to cancel that out. And air supremacy alone would not have won the war.
6. The atomic bomb would have been the only guaranteed war-winner. But Germany didn't have the deserts of New Mexico to build and test the bomb, nor the access to uranium and other resources. The US and the USSR both had unlimited natural resources and wilderness areas. The UK had this by way of Canada. But Germany did not.
7. Hitler only thought about "terror weapons" like the V-2 and the Intercontinental Bomber (i.e. the B-29) That's because Hitler's goal was never to be a winner. He only wanted to take down more Jews and Bolsheviks than Germans. His mentality was basically that of a Kamikaze. I guess you could say that Hitler was a terrorist at heart.
8. Hitler was an atheist but also a "cultural Catholic". Thus he viewed that spreading the Catholic concept of absolute heirarchy was an end in itself, although he apparently never believed in God. Obviously if he had believed in God then the Holocaust would have put him in major trouble with God. That's a no-brainer.
9. I guess you have to conclude that Hitler's concept of World War II was that of a Civil War between Germans and Jews over the control of Europe. I don't think there is any other paradigm that explains Hitler's WWII strategy. Hitler must have seen Bolshevism (like many others did) as being mostly a Jewish phenomenon.
10. Hitler always thought that in the end, the US and the UK would turn their coats, and side with him against Bolshevism. That actually happened, but AFTER the War, not during the War.
11. The Nuremberg Trials served basically the same function as a Peace Treaty Negotiations as in Versailles in 1919. It was an Nuremberg where the Germans were forced to admit guilt in starting the War just as they had done at Versailles. It was a public relations event and any Nazi who had any brains was able to escape the clutches of the Nuremberg apparatus.
12. If Stalin had seized the Vatican, imagine how bad the result would be. If you consider Vietnam to be a crusade to save that country for the benefit of the Catholic clergy there, then imagine the WHOLE WORLD AS VIETNAM!!! For one thing, there would have been a rain of A-Bombs. And that would have been just the beginning.
So all of the basic tenets of World War II, such as the rationale for the bombing of Germany and the rationale for the Italian Campaign were built on fabrications. Therefore, it is hard to apply logic or rational thought to the question of whether Hitler (had he waited) could have used his weapons to win the War.
James Lateer
1. The first one is the jet plane. The US and the UK had air supremacy over Germany and Japan, yet the US Strategic Bombing Survey after the War found that the strategic bombing of Germany was ineffective. Would the jet plane have changed anything?
2. They found that if the US and the UK had targeted only transportation and fuel, then the strategic bombing would have worked.
3. The US and the UK did not target fuel and transportation because they wanted to keep Hitler in the War until Hitler and Stalin had ripped each other's guts out.
4. The Italian Campaign in WWII was only carried out to keep Stalin from seizing the Vatican. We lost 2/3 of our WWII casualties in the Italian campaign. Despite that, Stalin came very close to occupation of part of Italy. Only Allen Dulles and Lyman Lemnitzer stood in his way with the "separate peace" behind the back of Roosevelt.
5. If Hitler had jet planes, then maybe he could have gotten air supremacy over the UK. But the US would have had their own jet planes to send to Europe within a year to cancel that out. And air supremacy alone would not have won the war.
6. The atomic bomb would have been the only guaranteed war-winner. But Germany didn't have the deserts of New Mexico to build and test the bomb, nor the access to uranium and other resources. The US and the USSR both had unlimited natural resources and wilderness areas. The UK had this by way of Canada. But Germany did not.
7. Hitler only thought about "terror weapons" like the V-2 and the Intercontinental Bomber (i.e. the B-29) That's because Hitler's goal was never to be a winner. He only wanted to take down more Jews and Bolsheviks than Germans. His mentality was basically that of a Kamikaze. I guess you could say that Hitler was a terrorist at heart.
8. Hitler was an atheist but also a "cultural Catholic". Thus he viewed that spreading the Catholic concept of absolute heirarchy was an end in itself, although he apparently never believed in God. Obviously if he had believed in God then the Holocaust would have put him in major trouble with God. That's a no-brainer.
9. I guess you have to conclude that Hitler's concept of World War II was that of a Civil War between Germans and Jews over the control of Europe. I don't think there is any other paradigm that explains Hitler's WWII strategy. Hitler must have seen Bolshevism (like many others did) as being mostly a Jewish phenomenon.
10. Hitler always thought that in the end, the US and the UK would turn their coats, and side with him against Bolshevism. That actually happened, but AFTER the War, not during the War.
11. The Nuremberg Trials served basically the same function as a Peace Treaty Negotiations as in Versailles in 1919. It was an Nuremberg where the Germans were forced to admit guilt in starting the War just as they had done at Versailles. It was a public relations event and any Nazi who had any brains was able to escape the clutches of the Nuremberg apparatus.
12. If Stalin had seized the Vatican, imagine how bad the result would be. If you consider Vietnam to be a crusade to save that country for the benefit of the Catholic clergy there, then imagine the WHOLE WORLD AS VIETNAM!!! For one thing, there would have been a rain of A-Bombs. And that would have been just the beginning.
So all of the basic tenets of World War II, such as the rationale for the bombing of Germany and the rationale for the Italian Campaign were built on fabrications. Therefore, it is hard to apply logic or rational thought to the question of whether Hitler (had he waited) could have used his weapons to win the War.
James Lateer