The Most Devastating Event to Nazi Germany

@Grigoriy:

Warsaw Ghetto: Can’t recall exact details.

This should be as “due to Hitler” then as well, as it was another “plant” that grew out of the “seed” of the genocide.

@MuthaRussia:

And F_alk, I didn’t make the name, i saw it in a history book-
“Night of Broken Glass”
Kristall doesn’t mean crystal! :roll:

What should i say…

http://dict.leo.org/?search=Kristall&searchLoc=0&relink=on&spellToler=std§Hdr=on&tableBorder=1&cmpType=relaxed⟨=de

why not LEO it?
why not believe the native german speaker?
why put in a “:roll:” before you know who you argue with ;) ?

@F_alk:

@MuthaRussia:

And F_alk, I didn’t make the name, i saw it in a history book-
“Night of Broken Glass”
Kristall doesn’t mean crystal! :roll:

What should i say…

http://dict.leo.org/?search=Kristall&searchLoc=0&relink=on&spellToler=std§Hdr=on&tableBorder=1&cmpType=relaxed⟨=de

why not LEO it?
why not believe the native german speaker?
why put in a “:roll:” before you know who you argue with ;) ?

lmao
i knew this, but i wanted to see how F_alk would respond (i am not a native German speaker, but i know something about the holocaust . . . ).

i wish Mussolini had been an option, that bloated Italian caused him problems in Greece and cost him Africa. However with the list i went for Barborossa, Leningrad, Stalingrad and MOsocow where going to happen as a result of this so are connected……
Battle of Britian was pretty bad also

@MuthaRussia:

I’m italian! I find that comment very insulting! Mussolini didn’t mess hitler up that much!!! Hitler was the one that initiated the treaty with him! Also, he wasn’t really “bloated” He wore a form of suit that made him appear bigger! :x

Well let’s see…we already know that two of the things on your list were caused by Italy, so if Hitler hadn’t made the treaty, then that would have been a plus for Hitler, wouldn’t it? He would then not have had to commit necessary divisions to Africa and the Balkans-well he probably would have attacked the Balkans anyway, as they were there, but Germany would have been able to choose their battles instead of bailing out their Italian “allies.”

Oh, and what did Italy ever do for Germany? It isn’t a very good alliance when you have to do all the work now, is it?

Most devasting event on Nazi Germany how about Pearl Harbor? Had Japan not gone to war with America Germany would still have lost the Russian war but may have been able to gain seperate treaties for each Ally.

how about
“declaring war on America”.
until then, they had few problems with the Americans, and could well have kept most of their focus on the east and Britain. An A&A game where the US stays out of the European theater would not be a game . . . .

Mussolini didn’t mess hitler up that much

So tieing down very usefull infantry and panzer divisions wasn’t that big of a deal? Hitler should have stopped all communication with Mussolini after Italy’s big “victory” in Ethopia.

It still amazes me how a Italian force of over 500,000 men could not manage to capture the British held Africa against a force a fraction of their own.

@Zhukov_2003:

It still amazes me how a Italian force of over 500,000 men could not manage to capture the British held Africa against a force a fraction of their own.

The Italian army was not as highly mechanized as the British, probably also not as well trained.

Even if the Germans hadn’t declared war on Germany the US would’ve once Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. Remember, that the US and Germany were involved in an unofficial war on the high seas throughout much of 1941.

North Africa just wasn’t a decisive theater in the war, and I’m puzzled as to why so many people think it was. The deciding factor in WWII was the military might the two superpowers Russia and the US were able to flex against the Axis powers. This being said without US involvement Germany could have been strong enough to force the Soviets to ultimately accept a separate peace despite Russian victory, and this could easily have representated a restoration of the 1914 borders, and the undoing of what the treaty of versailles achieved.

Mussolini boasted his forces would destroy the British fleet and capture Africa with his 8 million bayonets. Actually Mussolini relied on HItler for resources (in particualr coal) and had set HItler huge quantities of materials which he required before he would be able to join in the war (hence Mussolini not joining in till he thought that the war was as good as won). This isnt particularly insulting to the Italians, they were a country which was not ready for war but which had been forced in by their leader.

i’ve gotta go with the Battle of Britain here. Hitler had his sights right to start with but then changed them at a critical moment. the Luftwaffe had crippled the RAF near to the point of defeat, but then Hitler ordered the transitioning of his attacks to civilian targets far from the RAF airfields. Thus giveing the RAF much needed time to recuperate and retake the skies. by doing this, Hitler allowed massive Air losses to the British and gave them ample time to construct defenses against the impending Sealion.

And yet I would argue SeaLion would never have succeeded anyway. If you compare D-Day to SeaLion you can see the level of commitment and support needed for such a large amphib operation to succeed. Of course Germany did not have this.

And yet I would argue SeaLion would never have succeeded anyway. If you compare D-Day to SeaLion you can see the level of commitment and support needed for such a large amphib operation to succeed. Of course Germany did not have this.

Yes, I would totally agree with you here. Whether you can then infer that the Germans were never serious about Sealion as a result is another matter but I would agree that the level of ‘amateurism’ compared to Allied preparations for D-Day indicate a collossal defeat waiting on the other side of the Channel.
As for North Africa being a ‘sideshow’ Agent Smith……I’m not so sure. In Axis and Allies yes it can be ignored because it is pretty much irrelevant. But in the war…as someone said most of the Italian army was committed to Africa and its large Navy was of course Med based thus seriously challenging Britains’ links with India. Whatever your opinion as to italian quality their destruction helped pull Italy out of the war thus obliging German forces to defend against another front. (Italian engineers were also well ahead of others in jet-engine research. Another good reason to knock Italy out of the war. Which of course was begun through africa.)
It also allowed Torch to take place (thus giving a good dress rehearsal for D-Day and showing how well the Allies could co-operate in a combined arms op.) It also checked German ambitions in Iraq and Syria which thus checking an attempt to widen the war.
It was also, along with strategic bombing, the only place the British could challenge the axis on the ground until the war became global with Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor.
North Africa irrelevant? Come off it!

Of course you’d say that you’re English. The fact is that NAfrica represents the only theater of the war in which the Brits had any unilateral success so of course they feel it is the most important, but clearly it wasn’t. You forget that it was in Russia where Germany based the majority of its armed forces. Italy-10 divisions, France 20-30 depending on the time, Russia-200+. Needless to say that at the height of the war in 1943-44 the Germans had over 75% of their forces committed against Russia. Had the Brits faced the Germans one on one they would have had no chance. If the Americans and Brits had faced the bulk of the German army in France assuming they hadn’t gone to war with Russia it would’ve taken a long time to bring down the third reich, and a situation like that in WWI may have developed. So I stand by what I said before, had the Germans not gone to war with the Americans or Russians then at some point they could’ve forced peace on the remaining powers. For example, if Barbarossa never happens then the sub campaign in the Atlantic may have succeeded in forcing the capitulation of the English without invasion of Britain being needed, and once the Uk backs out of the war there would’ve been no reason for the Germans to go to war with the US.

Hitler could have at least doubled the size of his army if he had not been so strong on his racism, not just the Jews but also Russian POW’s (some of whom did fight) and Slavs and other occupied countries.

If HItler had carried out Sealion it would have been instead of Russia (or at least stalling it for a few years).