Oh really? So The Union was being invaded from two fronts, being bombarded from the air, and was being blockaded by sea?
It doesn't take away from the fact, that had the Army of The Potomac been destroyed, or at least been forced into a tactical position that was untenable, the United States wouldn't have had any choice but to agree to a peace settlement. Something you have to understand, the mission of the Confederates was never to over-run the northern states.
Not to mention the Union still had a larger population, a larger industrial base, and a better transportive system, the exact opposite of Nazi Germany.
On the battlefield, tactics and strategy are everything. It's naïve to think that a larger population is guaranteed victory. It's a good think the north had a larger population to use as cannon fodder, because without it, the war would have had a very different ending. The south had all the first round draft picks, as far as general officers were concerned; and soldiers who were far superior of natural martial ability and field craft. That's still true today; the south--statistically speaking--produces more, better soldiers.
It's doesn't matter what 'could' of happened, because that's NOT what happened. Hitler didn't suddenly realize he was a **** commander and hand over full command to his generals. He kept on declaring trapped German Divisions "Fortresses". He kept getting more and more suspicious of the Wehrmacht and more entrusting with the SS. He kept insisting on taking Germany down with him. That's what happened. That's what is in the history books.
You're looking at history through a narrow prism. Just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean that it was an impossibility.
Well, that's them. I'm not the most knowledgable on the Civil War.
You should be, because historically speaking, they're all intertwined. To understand one, you have to know about the others. It prevents the, "oh no! There's no way that could have happened!", school of thought from existing.
But he didn't. He didn't send the Panzers, he didn't do anything useful. That's what happened. Something in that little brain of his told him not to, so he didn't. That's what everyone will recall if you ask them.
Again, just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
Look, if you want to discuss what could've gone differently, or what might have happened if X had been different then fine, make another thread and we'll talk about it over lunch.
Stop making the erroneous claim that there's no way the Germans could have won the war and I won't have to correct you. If you expect me to just go along with revisionist history, you're sadly mistaken, sir.
Oh? How would that attack through the Ardennes ended any better for the Germans?
They could have gained ground that would have given Watch on The Rhine a higher probability of success. You have to remember, Watch on The Rhine was launched only three months after Market Garden.
Heh. Bet you pissed off some Brits by saying that.
And, I don't really care. Most of them probably know he was a joke, a political general of the worst order. He almost gave the whole show away on multiple occasions. The bastard, after insisting on Market Garden to be launched, planned the operation, dared criticize the units involved for it's failure. He was a piece-a-****. He even had the gaul to suggest that he knew the operation was going to fail, all along and that if everyone had listened to him, it would have been a huge success...HE planned the ****ing thing!
In Sicily, he actually wanted Patton to STOP and allow him to take Messina. Good thing Patton disobeyed orders to halt; no telling what kind of disaster that could have turned into.
You're welcome!